Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi (2017)

Can a High Court cancel a bail order granted by a Sessions Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a violent assault and murder. The court examined whether the Sessions Court had properly considered all relevant factors when granting bail to the accused. This case highlights the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for a fair trial.

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in cancelling the bail granted by the Sessions Court.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law – Murder

Case Name: Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT) of Delhi & Anr.

Judgment Date: 14 November 2017

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Case Background

On October 21, 2015, Rohit Bansal and his friends went to a club. While dancing, Rohit accidentally bumped into someone and apologized. However, a fight broke out, and Rohit was hit with a glass. The club’s security intervened, and Rohit and his friends were asked to leave.

After leaving, Rohit realized his phone was missing. He and some friends returned to the club in their car. They found their way blocked by other vehicles. When they asked to pass, the individuals from the earlier altercation attacked them.

One of the attackers used an iron rod to beat Rupesh. When Rohit tried to intervene, he was also attacked. Another assailant hit Rupesh on the head with a brick. The attackers fled, leaving Rupesh unconscious. Rohit took Rupesh to the hospital, where he later died.

Based on Rohit’s statement, the police filed a First Information Report (FIR). Initially, it was under Section 307 (attempt to murder) and Section 308 (attempt to culpable homicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). After Rupesh’s death, the FIR was altered to include Section 302 (murder) of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court granted bail to Anil Kumar Yadav on February 27, 2017. The court reasoned that no specific overt act was attributed to him, and CCTV footage did not clearly show his involvement. Additionally, he had been in custody for about sixteen months.

The complainant challenged this order in the High Court the very next day. The High Court set aside the trial court’s order, cancelling Anil Kumar Yadav’s bail. The High Court relied on the case of Puran v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338, noting that a detailed examination of evidence is not needed at the bail stage.

While the appeal against Anil Kumar Yadav’s bail was pending in the High Court, the Sessions Court granted bail to the other accused on April 24, 2017. The Sessions Court reasoned that co-accused Anil Kumar Yadav had already been granted bail and that they had been in custody for about one and a half years.

The High Court then cancelled the bail of the other accused on September 8, 2017. All the accused then appealed to the Supreme Court against the cancellation of their bails.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• Section 302, IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 307, IPC: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 308, IPC: This section defines the punishment for attempt to commit culpable homicide.
• Section 34, IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
• Section 201, IPC: This section defines the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 212, IPC: This section defines the punishment for harbouring offender.

The court also considered the principles for granting bail as established in various precedents.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• Anil Kumar Yadav:
  • Rohit Bansal’s initial statement did not name him as an assailant.
  • CCTV footage did not show his presence or use of a baseball bat.
  • He had been in custody for over sixteen months.
• Tarun @ Maddy:
  • The incident was not pre-meditated and happened in the spur of the moment.
  • The trial court had considered all relevant materials.
  • The High Court should not have substituted its views.
• Vikas Balguer and Ashish Balguer:
  • The Sessions Court had independently considered the materials.
  • The High Court wrongly assumed they were granted bail based on parity with Anil Kumar Yadav.
• Vikas @ Shammi:
  • His name was not in the FIR.
  • He was arrested based on statements of other accused.
  • There is no prima facie case against him.

Prosecution’s Arguments:

• Statements of Rohit Bansal and other witnesses show the accused’s involvement.
• Incriminating articles were recovered from the accused.
• The trial court wrongly based its decision on discrepancies in CCTV footage and witness statements.
• The period of custody is not a relevant consideration for bail.

Complainant’s Arguments:

• The trial court’s order was perverse because it considered irrelevant materials.
• The High Court rightly set aside the trial court’s order because it was unjustified.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Sessions Court ignored relevant materials while granting bail to the appellants/accused.
2. Whether the order of the Sessions Court suffered from serious infirmities, justifying interference by the High Court in exercise of judicial discretion.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Authorities on Grant of Bail

• Puran v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that a detailed examination of evidence is not required at the stage of granting bail.
• State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21 – Supreme Court of India: This case outlines the factors to be considered when granting bail, including the nature of the offense, the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterates the need for a judicious exercise of discretion when granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. (2005) 2 SCC 13 – Supreme Court of India: This case lists the considerations for granting bail in non-bailable offenses, such as the nature of the offense and the possibility of witness tampering.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002) 3 SCC 598 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes that the period of incarceration is not a relevant consideration for bail.
• Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 – Supreme Court of India: This case outlines the principles for granting bail, including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.
• Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the factors to consider when granting bail, including the possibility of the accused tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Authorities on Cancellation of Bail

• Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat and Others (2008) 3 SCC 775 – Supreme Court of India: This case states that the period of incarceration is not a relevant consideration for granting bail.
• Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal and Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 678 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to support the argument that the High Court can interfere with a bail order if it is perverse.
• Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2012) 12 SCC 180 – Supreme Court of India: This case states that if a court granting bail ignores relevant materials or considers irrelevant materials, the High Court can cancel the bail.
• Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286 – Supreme Court of India: This case discusses the importance of balancing the liberty of the accused with the need for a fair trial.
• State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav (2017) 2 SCC 178 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes the need to protect fair trial and ensure that witnesses can depose without fear.
• Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005) 3 SCC 143 – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasizes the importance of protecting the fair trial and preventing the accused from tampering with evidence.

Legal Provisions

• Section 161, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.
• Section 228, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section deals with the framing of charges by the Sessions Court.
• Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail.

Authority Analysis Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities to support its decision:

• The Court cited Puran v. Rambilas and Another (2001) 6 SCC 338* to reiterate that a detailed examination of evidence is not required at the stage of granting bail.
• The Court used State of U.P. through CBI v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21* to highlight the factors to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the offense and the possibility of witness tampering.
• The Court referred to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528* to emphasize the need for a judicious exercise of discretion while granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• The Court cited Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N. (2005) 2 SCC 13* to emphasize the factors to be considered for granting bail in non-bailable offenses.
• The Court cited Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and others (2002) 3 SCC 598* and Gobarbhai Naranbhai Singala v. State of Gujarat and Others (2008) 3 SCC 775* to state that the period of incarceration is not a relevant consideration for bail.
• The Court used Brij Nandan Jaiswal v. Munna alias Munna Jaiswal and Anr. (2009) 1 SCC 678* to support the argument that the High Court can interfere with a bail order if it is perverse.
• The Court relied on Kanwar Singh Meena v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2012) 12 SCC 180* to state that the High Court can cancel bail if the lower court ignored relevant materials or considered irrelevant materials.
• The Court referred to Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286* and State of Bihar v. Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav (2017) 2 SCC 178* to emphasize the need to balance the liberty of the accused with the need for a fair trial, and that witnesses must be able to depose without fear.
• The Court cited Panchanan Mishra v. Digambar Mishra (2005) 3 SCC 143* to emphasize the importance of protecting the fair trial and preventing the accused from tampering with evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several points in its reasoning:

• The Sessions Court had incorrectly focused on discrepancies in the CCTV footage and witness statements, instead of considering the overall evidence.
• The High Court was correct in observing that the CCTV footage might not have captured the entire incident.
• The Sessions Court had ignored the statements of eyewitnesses and the recoveries made from the accused.
• The period of incarceration was not a relevant consideration for granting bail in a case involving serious crimes like murder.
• The court emphasized the need to ensure a fair trial, where witnesses can depose without fear.

Sentiment Analysis of the Court’s Reasoning

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis

Logical Reasoning Flowchart

The court reasoned that the Sessions Court had not properly considered the evidence and had focused on irrelevant factors. The High Court was right to intervene to ensure a fair trial.

The Supreme Court observed that “the trial court is yet to record the testimony of material witnesses including the complainant as well as all the material witnesses. For ensuring the fair trial, witnesses must be in a position to freely depose without fear.”

The court also stated that “the materials available on record prima facie indicating the involvement of the accused, possibility of accused tampering with witnesses and the gravity of the crime were not kept in view by the Sessions Court.”

The court further noted that “in a criminal trial, witnesses must be able to depose without fear, freely and truthfully.”

Key Takeaways

• Sessions Courts must consider all relevant materials, including eyewitness statements and recoveries, when granting bail.
• Discrepancies in CCTV footage or witness statements should not be the sole basis for granting bail.
• High Courts can and should intervene if a Sessions Court’s bail order is based on irrelevant considerations or ignores crucial evidence.
• The period of incarceration is not a relevant consideration for granting bail in serious crimes like murder.
• Ensuring a fair trial, where witnesses can depose without fear, is paramount.

Directions

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to cancel the bail of all the accused. The appeals were dismissed.