Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Bohatti Devi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 September 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a murder case without considering the seriousness of the charges and the evidence presented? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, setting aside a High Court order that had granted bail to an accused charged with murder and criminal conspiracy. This case highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal against a High Court order that granted bail to Respondent No. 2, who is accused of offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The original complainant, now the State, appealed the High Court’s decision, arguing that the High Court did not properly consider the gravity of the offenses and relevant material on record. The accused had previously attempted to quash the criminal proceedings against him, but this was dismissed by the High Court. A subsequent special leave petition to the Supreme Court was also dismissed. A non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused, and he was arrested in 2021.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had previously dismissed an application by the accused under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash the criminal proceedings. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court when it dismissed the special leave petition. Subsequently, despite these previous rejections, the High Court granted bail to the accused. The High Court also considered the fact that other co-accused were enlarged on bail, but did not consider the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

The State argued that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the offenses under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was also argued that the High Court did not consider the material forming the charge sheet. The State contended that the High Court ignored the fact that the accused’s previous attempts to quash the criminal proceedings had been rejected by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The State also emphasized that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the accused, who was subsequently arrested in 2021. The State further argued that the High Court had erred in granting bail on the basis of parity with other co-accused without considering the specific role attributed to the accused.

The arguments were structured around the following points:

• The High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offenses.
• The High Court did not consider the material forming the charge sheet.
• The High Court ignored the previous dismissal of the accused’s application to quash the proceedings.
• The High Court ignored the dismissal of the special leave petition by the Supreme Court.
• The High Court ignored the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and subsequent arrest of the accused.
• The High Court erred in granting bail on the basis of parity without considering the specific role of the accused.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering the seriousness of the offenses, the evidence on record, and the prior dismissal of the accused’s attempts to quash the proceedings.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court addressed the issue:

Authorities

The judgment did not explicitly cite any cases or books. The Court did, however, consider the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section specifies the punishment for murder.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused. The Court found that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the offenses, the material evidence, and the fact that the accused’s earlier attempts to quash the proceedings had been dismissed by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had not provided adequate reasons for granting bail, especially in a case involving serious offenses like murder and criminal conspiracy.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following:

• The Court noted that the accused was charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)* and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)*, highlighting the seriousness of the offense.
• The Court considered the fact that the accused’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)* was previously dismissed by the High Court, which was a factor ignored by the High Court while granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The seriousness of the offenses under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The High Court’s failure to consider the material forming the charge sheet.
• The High Court’s disregard for its own previous order dismissing the accused’s application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• The High Court’s disregard for the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the special leave petition.
• The fact that a non-bailable warrant had been issued against the accused, who was subsequently arrested.
• The High Court’s error in granting bail based on parity without considering the specific role of the accused.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual considerations (such as the previous orders and the arrest) and legal considerations (such as the seriousness of the offenses and the proper application of parity).

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was clear and logical, emphasizing the importance of considering all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.

The Supreme Court stated, “the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged against the respondent No. 2.” The Court also noted, “No cogent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, germane to the grant of bail and that too in a very serious offence under Sections 302 and 120B IPC.” The Court further observed, “the High Court while considering the parity has not at all considered the role attributed to the said co-accused and the allegations against respondent No. 2 herein.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must consider the seriousness and gravity of offenses when deciding on bail applications.
• All relevant material, including the charge sheet, must be considered by the High Court.
• Previous orders of the High Court and Supreme Court must be taken into account.
• Parity cannot be the sole basis for granting bail; the specific role of the accused must be considered.
• The Supreme Court will intervene if High Courts fail to follow established principles in bail matters.

The decision reinforces the importance of a thorough and reasoned approach to bail decisions, particularly in serious criminal cases. It also serves as a reminder that the Supreme Court will not hesitate to correct errors made by High Courts in such matters.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent No. 2 to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority/Court within two weeks. If the accused fails to surrender, the Court directed that a non-bailable warrant be issued against him. The Court also directed the Trial Court to conduct the trial in accordance with law and on merits, without being influenced by any observations made in the present order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must consider the seriousness of the offenses, material evidence, previous orders, and the specific role of the accused when deciding on bail applications. This judgment reinforces existing principles of law regarding bail and emphasizes the need for a thorough and reasoned approach, especially in cases involving serious offenses. There is no change in the previous position of law but a reiteration of the existing law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Bohatti Devi vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. underscores the importance of a comprehensive and reasoned approach by High Courts when deciding on bail applications, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the need to consider all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the charges, the evidence presented, and any previous judicial orders. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the principles governing bail and the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring their proper application.