LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a victim has the right to be heard at the stage of adjudication of a bail application of an accused and whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations while granting bail.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr
Judgment Date: 18 April 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 387
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Surya Kant, J, Hima Kohli, J
Can a victim of a crime be denied the right to be heard when a court decides whether to grant bail to the accused? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case stemming from the violent incidents in Lakhimpur Kheri. The Court examined whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, erred in granting bail to an accused without properly considering the rights of the victims and the gravity of the charges.
The Supreme Court, in this case, has emphasized the importance of including victims in the criminal justice process, particularly at the stage of bail hearings. The bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Surya Kant, and Justice Hima Kohli, delivered the judgment, highlighting the need for a balanced approach that respects both the rights of the accused and the victims.
Case Background
On September 29, 2021, farmers gathered in Khairaitya village, Lakhimpur Kheri District, to celebrate the birth anniversary of Sardar Bhagat Singh and to protest against the Indian Agricultural Acts of 2020. They objected to certain comments made by Mr. Ajay Mishra, the Union Minister of State for Home. The farmers decided to organize a protest against Mr. Mishra in his ancestral village on October 3, 2021.
On October 3, 2021, Ashish Mishra, the respondent-accused, organized an annual Dangal (wrestling) competition. Mr. Ajay Mishra and Mr. Keshav Prasad Maurya, the Deputy Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, were scheduled to attend. Farmers gathered near the helipad constructed for the Deputy Chief Minister, leading to a change in the route for the guests. The changed route also passed in front of the Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, where the protesting farmers were gathered.
Some supporters of the respondent-accused, traveling by car to the Dangal venue, were reportedly attacked by farmers. The vehicle’s mirrors were smashed, and a hoarding board with pictures of Mr. Ajay Mishra and the respondent-accused was damaged. The respondent-accused, upon learning of these events, allegedly conspired with his aides to retaliate against the protesting farmers.
The respondent-accused and his aides, armed with weapons, left the Dangal venue in a Mahindra Thar SUV, a Fortuner, and a Scorpio, driving towards the farmers’ protest site. As the farmers were returning home after their protest, these vehicles allegedly drove into the crowd, hitting them with the intention to kill. Many farmers were crushed by the vehicles. The Thar vehicle was eventually stopped. The respondent-accused and his co-accused, Sumit Jaiswal, then exited the Thar and escaped towards a nearby sugarcane field, firing their weapons.
As a result of this incident, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of the Thar vehicle, and two others were killed. Ten farmers suffered major and minor injuries.
On October 4, 2021, FIR No. 219 of 2021 was registered on the complaint of Jagjeet Singh, the Appellant No. 1, at Police Station Tikonia, against the respondent-accused and 15-20 unknown persons for causing the death of four farmers. Another FIR was registered by Sumit Jaiswal against unknown persons and protesting farmers for killing four persons, including the journalist Raman Kashyap, the driver of the Thar vehicle, and two other supporters of the respondent-accused.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court expressing concerns about the fairness of the investigation. On November 17, 2021, the Court reconstituted the Special Investigation Team (SIT) and appointed Justice (Retd.) Rakesh Kumar Jain to monitor the investigation. The SIT filed a charge sheet on January 3, 2022, identifying the respondent-accused as the main perpetrator.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 29 September 2021 | Farmers gathered to protest and celebrate Sardar Bhagat Singh’s birth anniversary. |
| 3 October 2021 | Annual Dangal competition organized by Ashish Mishra. Farmers gathered to protest. Violence occurred, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. |
| 4 October 2021 | FIR No. 219/2021 registered against Ashish Mishra and others. FIR No. 220/2021 registered by Sumit Jaiswal. |
| 17 November 2021 | Supreme Court reconstituted the SIT and appointed Justice (Retd.) Rakesh Kumar Jain to monitor the investigation. |
| 3 January 2022 | The reconstituted SIT filed a charge sheet, naming Ashish Mishra as the main perpetrator. |
| 10 February 2022 | High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, granted bail to Ashish Mishra. |
| 10 March 2022 | Diljot Singh, a witness, claimed to have been threatened and attacked by the supporters of Ashish Mishra. |
| 18 April 2022 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail order and directed Ashish Mishra to surrender. |
Course of Proceedings
The Accused-Respondent applied for bail before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The High Court granted regular bail to the Respondent-Accused on February 10, 2022. The High Court’s decision was primarily based on four reasons:
- ✓ The primary allegation against the Respondent-Accused was of firing his weapon and causing gunshot injuries, but neither the inquest reports nor the injury reports revealed any firearm injury. The High Court considered the case to be one of “accident by hitting with the vehicle.”
- ✓ The allegation that the Respondent-Accused provoked the driver of the car could not be sustained since the driver and two others in the vehicle were killed by the protesters.
- ✓ The Respondent-Accused had joined the investigation.
- ✓ The charge sheet had been filed.
The victims, dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and the Arms Act, 1959.
- ✓ Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC deal with rioting, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, and unlawful assembly, respectively.
- ✓ Section 302 of the IPC addresses punishment for murder.
- ✓ Section 307 of the IPC deals with attempt to murder.
- ✓ Section 326 of the IPC addresses voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
- ✓ Section 34 of the IPC deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- ✓ Section 120-B of the IPC addresses criminal conspiracy.
- ✓ Sections 3, 25, and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959, relate to the possession and use of illegal arms.
The Supreme Court also considered Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which defines a “victim” as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged. This definition includes the victim’s guardian or legal heir. The Court emphasized the substantive rights of victims under the amended Cr.P.C., which are enforceable and a facet of human rights.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ The High Court erred by overlooking important aspects and placing undue weight on the absence of firearm injuries.
- ✓ The High Court disregarded the principles governing the court’s discretion at the time of granting bail, as established in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118.
- ✓ The bail order was passed in a mechanical manner with non-application of mind.
- ✓ Counsel for the victims were disconnected during online proceedings and were not heard by the High Court. Their application for rehearing was also not considered.
- ✓ A witness, Diljot Singh, filed FIR No. 46 of 2022, claiming that he was threatened and attacked by the supporters of the Respondent-Accused on March 10, 2022.
- ✓ Citing Alister Anthony Pariera v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648, the appellants argued that if an act of rash and negligent driving was preceded by a real intention to cause death, a charge under Section 302 of the IPC may be attracted.
Respondent No. 1’s (Accused) Arguments:
- ✓ The High Court was bound to consider the issue of bullet injuries based on the allegations in FIR No. 219 of 2021.
- ✓ The Respondent-Accused was not in the Thar vehicle and was at the Dangal venue.
- ✓ If the Supreme Court were to set aside the bail order, the Respondent-Accused would be left without any remedy and it would be nearly impossible for him to be released on bail until the conclusion of the trial.
Respondent No. 2’s (State of Uttar Pradesh) Arguments:
- ✓ A bail hearing should not be converted into a mini-trial.
- ✓ The Court should consider three basic parameters: (i) the possibility of tampering with evidence; (ii) whether the accused would be a flight risk; and (iii) the nature of the offense.
- ✓ The State Government had provided adequate security to all victims and witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
- ✓ Given the local roots of the Respondent-Accused, he could not be considered a flight risk.
- ✓ The nature of the offense was grave.
- ✓ The State had vehemently opposed the bail application before the High Court and did not deviate from its previous stand.
Submissions of Parties
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court’s Error in Granting Bail | Overlooked important aspects, undue weight on absence of firearm injuries. | Appellants |
| Disregarded principles governing bail discretion. | Appellants | |
| Bail order passed mechanically, non-application of mind. | Appellants | |
| Victims’ counsel not heard; rehearing application not considered. | Appellants | |
| Witness threatened by accused’s supporters. | Appellants | |
| Justification of High Court’s Order | High Court bound to consider bullet injuries based on FIR. | Respondent No. 1 |
| Accused not in the Thar vehicle. | Respondent No. 1 | |
| Cancellation of bail would leave accused without remedy. | Respondent No. 1 | |
| Parameters for Bail Consideration | Bail hearing should not be a mini-trial. | Respondent No. 2 |
| Consider possibility of tampering with evidence, flight risk, and nature of offense. | Respondent No. 2 | |
| Adequate security provided to witnesses. | Respondent No. 2 | |
| Accused not a flight risk, but offense is grave. | Respondent No. 2 |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C. is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of a bail application of an accused?
- Whether the High Court overlooked the relevant considerations while passing the impugned order granting bail to the Respondent-Accused?
- If so, whether the High Court’s order dated 10.02.2022 is palpably illegal and warrants interference by this Court?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether a victim has the right to be heard at the stage of bail adjudication? | Affirmative. | Victims have a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offense. |
| Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations? | Affirmative. | The High Court did not consider aspects such as the nature and gravity of the offense, severity of punishment, and likelihood of tampering with evidence. |
| Whether the High Court’s order warrants interference? | Affirmative. | The High Court’s order was illegal, did not conform to relevant considerations, and denied victims a fair hearing. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Principles governing the court’s discretion at the time of granting bail. |
| Alister Anthony Pariera v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | If an act of rash and negligent driving is preceded by a real intention to cause death, a charge under Section 302 of the IPC may be attracted. |
| Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Victim’s right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. |
| Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Need for balancing the rights of the accused and the victim. |
| Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 338 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Interference with bail order if found illegal or perverse. |
| Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2008) 13 SCC 584 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Interference with bail order if founded upon irrelevant materials. |
| Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Cancellation of bail if relevant considerations and prima facie material against the accused were ignored. |
| Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail. |
| Masroor, (2009) 14 SCC 286 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, especially in serious offenses. |
| Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 508 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Affirmation of principles for granting bail. |
| Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2018) 12 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Restatement of principles for granting bail. |
| Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Stringent provisions will melt down after a reasonably long period of incarceration. |
| Naresh Pal Singh v. Raj Karan and Anr, (1999) 9 SCC 104 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. |
| Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal & Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 678 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. |
| Hari Om Yadav v. Dinesh Singh Jaat & Anr, 2013 SCC Online SC 610 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration. |
| Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament of India | Considered | Definition of victim. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Party | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| High Court erred by overlooking important aspects and placing undue weight on the absence of firearm injuries. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court agreed that the High Court did not properly consider the gravity of the offense and focused too much on the absence of firearm injuries. |
| The High Court disregarded the principles governing the court’s discretion at the time of granting bail. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court held that the High Court did not adhere to the established principles for granting bail. |
| The bail order was passed in a mechanical manner with non-application of mind. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court found that the High Court’s order lacked a proper application of judicial mind. |
| Counsel for the victims were disconnected during online proceedings and were not heard by the High Court. Their application for rehearing was also not considered. | Appellants | Accepted. The Court acknowledged that victims were denied a fair hearing. |
| A witness, Diljot Singh, filed FIR No. 46 of 2022, claiming that he was threatened and attacked by the supporters of the Respondent-Accused on March 10, 2022. | Appellants | Noted. The Court took note of the allegation and directed the State authorities to reinforce the protection for witnesses. |
| The High Court was bound to consider the issue of bullet injuries based on the allegations in FIR No. 219 of 2021. | Respondent No. 1 | Rejected. The Court held that while the allegations in the FIR may have some bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to them. |
| The Respondent-Accused was not in the Thar vehicle and was at the Dangal venue. | Respondent No. 1 | Noted. The Court did not comment on the merits of the evidence. |
| If the Supreme Court were to set aside the bail order, the Respondent-Accused would be left without any remedy. | Respondent No. 1 | Addressed. The Court clarified that cancellation of bail does not mean indefinite denial of bail and remitted the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. |
| A bail hearing should not be converted into a mini-trial. | Respondent No. 2 | Accepted. The Court agreed that a detailed assessment of evidence is not a relevant consideration at the threshold stage of bail. |
| The Court should consider three basic parameters: (i) the possibility of tampering with evidence; (ii) whether the accused would be a flight risk; and (iii) the nature of the offense. | Respondent No. 2 | Accepted. The Court reiterated these as important factors to be considered while deciding bail applications. |
| The State Government had provided adequate security to all victims and witnesses under the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. | Respondent No. 2 | Noted. The Court acknowledged the security measures taken by the State. |
| Given the local roots of the Respondent-Accused, he could not be considered a flight risk. | Respondent No. 2 | Noted. The Court did not comment on this specifically. |
| The nature of the offense was grave. | Respondent No. 2 | Accepted. The Court acknowledged the gravity of the offense. |
| The State had vehemently opposed the bail application before the High Court and did not deviate from its previous stand. | Respondent No. 2 | Noted. The Court took note of the State’s consistent opposition to bail. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., (2020) 2 SCC 118: The Court relied on this case to highlight that the High Court had disregarded well-established principles that govern the Court’s discretion at the time of granting bail.
- ✓ Alister Anthony Pariera v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 2 SCC 648: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that if an act of rash and negligent driving was preceded by a real intention on the part of the wrongdoer to cause death, then a charge under Section 302 of the IPC may be attracted.
- ✓ Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka & Ors, (2019) 2 SCC 752: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need to give adequate representation to victims in criminal proceedings and affirmed the victim’s right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal.
- ✓ Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI, (2017) 14 SCC 809: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need for balancing the rights of the accused and the victim.
- ✓ Puran v. Rambilas & Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 338: The Court relied on this case to state that an appellate Court will be well within its ambit in setting aside the bail order if it is found to be illegal or perverse.
- ✓ Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat & Anr., (2008) 13 SCC 584: The Court cited this case to state that an appellate Court will be well within its ambit in setting aside the bail order if it is founded upon irrelevant materials.
- ✓ Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180: The Court relied on this case to state that the High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice.
- ✓ Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 496: The Court relied on this case to enumerate the principles that a Court must bear in mind while deciding an application for grant of bail.
- ✓ Masroor, (2009) 14 SCC 286: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the need to indicate reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where the accused is charged with having committed a serious offense.
- ✓ Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2014) 16 SCC 508: The Court cited this case to affirm the principles for granting bail.
- ✓ Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., (2018) 12 SCC 129: The Court referred to this case to restate the principles for granting bail.
- ✓ Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713: The Court relied on this case to state that even where statutory provisions expressly bar the grant of bail, after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down.
- ✓ Naresh Pal Singh v. Raj Karan and Anr, (1999) 9 SCC 104: The Court referred to this case for remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
- ✓ Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal & Anr, (2009) 1 SCC 678: The Court referred to this case for remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
- ✓ Hari Om Yadav v. Dinesh Singh Jaat & Anr, 2013 SCC Online SC 610: The Court referred to this case for remanding the matter back to the High Court for a fresh consideration.
- ✓ Section 2(wa) of the Cr.P.C.: The Court emphasized the definition of a “victim” and the substantive rights of victims under the amended Cr.P.C.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the bail granted to the accused was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the importance of victims’ rights, the need for a fair and effective hearing, and the proper application of judicial principles when deciding bail applications. The Court also expressed concern over the High Court’s failure to consider relevant factors and its tendency to evaluate the case on merits at the bail stage.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Denial of Victim’s Right to be Heard | 30% |
| High Court’s Overlooking of Relevant Considerations | 35% |
| High Court’s Exceeding Jurisdiction by touching upon the Merits of the Case | 20% |
| High Court’s Tearing Hurry in Granting Bail | 15% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by legal considerations, particularly the interpretation of victim’s rights and the principles governing the grant of bail. While the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal framework and procedural correctness weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Issue 1: Whether a victim has the right to be heard at the stage of bail adjudication?
Issue 2: Whether the High Court overlooked relevant considerations while granting bail?
Issue 3: Whether the High Court’s order warrants interference?
Final Order
The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and authorities, passed the following order:
- ✓ The High Court’s order dated 10.02.2022 granting bail to the Respondent-Accused was set aside.
- ✓ The Respondent-Accused was directed to surrender before the competent Court within a week.
- ✓ The matter was remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the bail application.
- ✓ The High Court was directed to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders expeditiously.
- ✓ The State authorities were directed to reinforce the protection for witnesses, particularly Diljot Singh.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jagjeet Singh & Ors vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr (2022) is a landmark decision that underscores the importance of victim’s rights in the criminal justice system. The Court’s emphasis on the need for a fair hearing for victims at the bail stage and its critique of the High Court’s approach highlight the judiciary’s commitment to upholding principles of justice and fairness. The judgment serves as a reminder that bail decisions must be made judiciously, considering all relevant factors, and must not be influenced by extraneous considerations or a rush to judgment. This case also reinforces the need for a balanced approach that respects both the rights of the accused and the victims, ensuring that justice is served in a comprehensive and equitable manner.