Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Honour Killing Case: Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24th July, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 642

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J. and Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

Can a High Court grant bail in a heinous crime like murder without proper reasoning and overlooking the seriousness of the allegations? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan. The court found that the High Court had granted bail to the accused in a murder case in a casual manner, without considering the seriousness of the allegations and the evidence against them. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the bail granted to the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Vikash Panwar, who was in a live-in relationship with Nirma @ Gudia. Nirma was married to Shrawan Jani and had two children. The parents and in-laws of Nirma were unhappy with the relationship and had threatened to kill Vikash. On May 17, 2020, Vikash was shot dead in Nayapura Mandore area. The informant, Rohit Bishnoi, who is the brother of the deceased, filed a First Information Report (F.I.R.) against four persons, including Vikas Vishnoi, Budharam, and Rajendra Bishnoi, who are the respondents in this case. The accused were charged under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Earlier, there were other FIRs filed. Meera Devi had filed F.I.R. No. 81 of 2020 stating that Vikash Panwar had kidnapped her daughter-in-law, Nirma. On 24 February, 2020, Nirma filed F.I.R. No. 88 of 2020 against her brother-in-law and parents-in-law for offences punishable under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahanagar, Jodhpur, dismissed Vikas Vishnoi’s bail application on 10 November, 2021. Subsequently, the High Court dismissed his bail application as withdrawn on 16 April, 2021. However, the High Court later granted bail to Vikas Vishnoi on 14 February, 2022, and to Budharam and Rajendra Bishnoi on 02 February, 2023. The informant, being aggrieved by the grant of bail, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 3 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with license for acquisition and possession of firearms and ammunition.
• Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: These sections deal with punishment for contravention of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court granted bail without considering the active involvement of the accused and the heinous nature of the crime.
• The High Court did not provide adequate reasons for granting bail, especially considering the potential for life imprisonment or even the death penalty.
• The High Court overlooked the overwhelming material evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused, focusing solely on a hostile witness.
• The discretion to grant bail must be guided by reasons and must consider the seriousness of the allegations and the potential punishment. Reliance was placed on Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar – [(2022) 4 SCC 497] and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – [(2022) 8 SCC 559].

State’s Arguments:

• The investigating officers collected substantial evidence, including eyewitness statements, CCTV footage, recovery of murder weapons, and call records, all of which implicate the accused.
• The High Court overlooked clear evidence and granted bail erroneously.
• Bail decisions must be made judiciously, considering the nature of the allegations, the strength of the evidence, the potential punishment, the character of the accused, and the public interest.
• The accused were not only involved in a conspiracy but also actively participated in the murder.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The High Court’s judgments do not suffer from any perversity that would warrant interference.
• Accused persons are entitled to bail if the court is of the prima facie view that they were not involved in the crime.
• The trial would take a considerable amount of time, and keeping the accused in custody indefinitely would be against the interest of justice and liberty.
• There is no justifiable cause to believe that the accused would influence witnesses, especially since they were in custody when a witness turned hostile.
• The accused have not misused their liberty, as evidenced by the lack of allegations against them for non-compliance with bail conditions.
• The role ascribed to Vikas Vishnoi is that he was riding a motorcycle with a co-accused, and there are no allegations of him inflicting injuries.
• The allegations against Rajendra Bishnoi and Budharam are baseless.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a case of honour killing where the accused were actively involved in the murder and there was prima facie evidence against them.
2. Whether the High Court’s orders granting bail were cryptic and devoid of proper reasoning.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh – [(1978) 1 SCC 240]: This case discusses the factors to be considered while deciding a bail application. The Court (Supreme Court of India) observed that the primary considerations are the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of release on witnesses, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.
• Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi – [(2001) 4 SCC 280]: This case also deals with the principles for granting bail. The Court (Supreme Court of India) reiterated that a balance must be struck between the liberty of the accused and the interests of justice.
• Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – [(2018) 12 SCC 129]: This case further elaborates on the factors to be considered while granting bail. The Court (Supreme Court of India) emphasized the need for a judicious exercise of discretion.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh – [(2002) 3 SCC 598]: This case held that an order granting bail in a mechanical manner without recording reasons is illegal. The Court (Supreme Court of India) stated such an order suffers from non-application of mind.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [(2010) 14 SCC 496]: This case also emphasizes the importance of recording reasons while granting bail. The Court (Supreme Court of India) noted that a reasoned order is essential for judicial review.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) – [(2021) 6 SCC 230]: This case reiterated that bail orders must be reasoned and not cryptic. The Court (Supreme Court of India) stressed the need for a judicial application of mind.
• Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar – [(2022) 4 SCC 497]: This case was cited by the appellant to support the argument that bail decisions must be reasoned and consider the seriousness of the allegations. The Court (Supreme Court of India) emphasized the need for a reasoned order.
• Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – [(2022) 8 SCC 559]: This case was also cited by the appellant to highlight the need for reasoned bail orders. The Court (Supreme Court of India) reiterated the need for a reasoned order.
• Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan – [2022 SCC OnLine SC 30]: This case discusses the importance of reasoned orders while granting bail. The Court (Supreme Court of India) emphasized that orders must be supported by valid reasons.
• Jaibunisha vs. Meharban – [(2022) 5 SCC 465]: This case also held that a casual and cryptic order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court (Supreme Court of India) emphasized that the liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, but the court must consider the seriousness of the accusations.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Gudikanti Narasimhulu vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh – [(1978) 1 SCC 240]*, Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT, Delhi – [(2001) 4 SCC 280]* and Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) – [(2018) 12 SCC 129]* to emphasize the factors to be considered while granting bail, such as the seriousness of the offence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of release on witnesses, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.
• The Court cited Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh – [(2002) 3 SCC 598]*, Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee – [(2010) 14 SCC 496]*, Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) – [(2021) 6 SCC 230]*, Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan – [2022 SCC OnLine SC 30]* and Jaibunisha vs. Meharban – [(2022) 5 SCC 465]* to highlight the importance of reasoned orders while granting bail and held that orders passed in a mechanical manner are illegal.
• The Court considered Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar – [(2022) 4 SCC 497]* and Deepak Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – [(2022) 8 SCC 559]* to reinforce that bail decisions must be guided by reasons and must consider the seriousness of the allegations.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning:

• The High Court’s orders were cryptic and lacked proper reasoning.
• The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations against the accused.
• The High Court did not adequately consider the evidence presented by the prosecution, including the specific roles ascribed to each accused in the murder.
• The possibility of the accused influencing witnesses could not be ruled out, especially considering that one witness had already turned hostile.
• The Court noted that the accused were not detained for an inordinate amount of time as under-trials.
• The Court found that the prosecution had brought on record adequate material that would prima facie point towards the guilt of the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was influenced by both factual aspects of the case (such as the evidence against the accused and the circumstances of the crime) and legal principles (such as the need for reasoned bail orders and the factors to be considered while granting bail). The factual aspects weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that a hostile witness was sufficient grounds for bail. The Court emphasized that a prima facie conclusion must be supported by reasons and must be arrived at after having regard to the vital facts of the case brought on record. The Court also noted that the High Court failed to consider the nature of the crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction.

“While we are conscious of the fact that liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, at the same time while considering an application for bail , courts cannot lose sight of the serious nature of the accusations against an accused and the facts that have a bearing on the case, particularly, when the accusations may not be false, frivolous or vexatious in nature but are supported by adequate material brought on record so as to enable a Court to arrive at a prima facie conclusion.”

“The High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid vital aspects of the case and granted bail to the respondents -accused by passing very cryptic and casual order s, de hors cogent reasoning.”

“Having considered the aforesaid facts of the present case in light of the law cited above, we do not think that this case is a fit case for the grant of bail to the respondents -accused, given the seriousness of the allegations against them.”

Key Takeaways

• Bail orders must be reasoned and not cryptic. High Courts must provide clear reasons when granting bail, especially in serious cases.
• Courts must consider the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence against the accused, and the potential for tampering with evidence.
• The liberty of an individual is an invaluable right, but it must be balanced with the interests of justice and the seriousness of the crime.
• The presence of a hostile witness is not the sole factor to be considered while granting bail.
• The Supreme Court has the power to set aside bail orders that are not in accordance with the law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the respondents-accused stand cancelled and that they must surrender before the concerned jail authorities within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail orders, especially in serious criminal cases, must be supported by cogent reasoning and must take into account the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence against the accused, and the potential for tampering with evidence. This judgment reinforces the principles laid down in previous cases regarding the grant of bail and emphasizes the need for a judicious exercise of discretion by the courts. It also highlights that a High Court cannot grant bail in a casual manner without considering all the relevant factors and that the Supreme Court can set aside such orders.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused in a murder case, emphasizing the need for reasoned bail orders and the importance of considering the seriousness of the allegations. The court held that the High Court had erred in granting bail by overlooking the material evidence and the gravity of the crime. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the principle that while individual liberty is paramount, it must be balanced with the interests of justice, especially in cases involving heinous crimes.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Bail
• Murder
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Honour Killing
• Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Rohit Bishnoi vs. State of Rajasthan case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in a murder case without proper reasoning and overlooking the seriousness of the allegations.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused and directed them to surrender to jail authorities.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court cancel the bail?

A: The Supreme Court found that the High Court’s orders were cryptic, casual, and devoid of proper reasoning, failing to address the material aspects of the case. The High Court also failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations, the evidence against the accused, and the potential for tampering with evidence.

Q: What legal provisions were involved in this case?

A: The case involved Section 302 (murder) and Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this case?

A: Key takeaways include the importance of reasoned bail orders, consideration of the seriousness of allegations and evidence, and the balance between individual liberty and the interests of justice. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the presence of a hostile witness is not the sole factor to be considered while granting bail.