LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to an accused facing murder charges, despite the gravity of the offense and the accused’s alleged role in the crime.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Judgment Date: 29 October 2021
Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 748
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and B V Nagarathna, J.
Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a murder case, especially when there are serious allegations against the accused and the crime is of a grave nature? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the importance of considering the seriousness of the crime and the accused’s role before granting bail. This judgment highlights the critical balance between an individual’s liberty and the need to maintain public order and ensure justice. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice B.V. Nagarathna, with the opinion authored by Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Case Background
The case revolves around the murder of Daansingh, the Sarpanch of a village, who was allegedly killed due to prior enmity. The appellant, Bhoopendra Singh, is the son of the deceased. The second respondent, Omvati, was accused of conspiring in the murder of Daansingh, who was murdered on 11 September 2017. Earlier, Daansingh had survived an attempt on his life in September 2015, for which a case was registered, and Omvati was charge-sheeted. Daansingh was to give evidence in this case. A fortnight before he was to give evidence, he was murdered.
Omvati was arrested on 3 October 2017, and a charge sheet was filed against her on 28 December 2017. The High Court had previously rejected her bail applications on multiple occasions. However, the High Court granted her bail on her fifth application, which led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 2015 | Daansingh was shot at, and FIR No. 466/2015 was registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 11 September 2017 | Daansingh was murdered. |
| 12 September 2017 | FIR No. 732/2017 was registered at Police Station Mathuraghat for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302, and 336 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act 1959. |
| 3 October 2017 | The second respondent, Omvati, was arrested. |
| 28 December 2017 | Final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was submitted, naming Omvati as an accused. |
| 6 April 2018 | The High Court denied bail to Omvati. |
| 5 September 2019 | The High Court again denied bail to Omvati. |
| 8 September 2020 | The High Court denied bail to Omvati for the fourth time. |
| 11 August 2021 | The High Court granted bail to Omvati on her fifth application. |
| 29 October 2021 | The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court granting bail. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan had initially rejected Omvati’s bail applications four times. However, the fifth bail application was allowed by the High Court, citing reasons such as Omvati being a woman, her long custody period, no overt act assigned to her, bail granted to a co-accused, variance in the prosecution story, and the expected delay in the trial. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had previously observed that the second respondent was not cooperating in the investigation.
Legal Framework
The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”), and the Arms Act, 1959. The relevant sections of the IPC include:
- Section 147: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 148: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint.
- Section 307: Attempt to murder.
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
- Section 336: Act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Additionally, the case also refers to Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), which deals with the report of police officer on completion of investigation.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Bhoopendra Singh):
- The High Court erred in stating that no overt act was attributed to Omvati. The charge sheet indicates that she was using multiple SIM cards and was in constant contact with the sharp shooter and her son, both co-accused.
- Omvati was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime.
- The High Court had previously noted that Omvati was not cooperating with the investigation.
- There was no change in circumstances to warrant the grant of bail after four previous rejections.
- Parity could not be claimed with co-accused Vijaypal, who was not charge-sheeted.
- The deceased was murdered shortly before he was to depose in a previous case, and Omvati was allegedly following the car of the deceased and providing instructions to the shooter.
- Even the brother of the appellant was assaulted shortly before his testimony was to be recorded.
Respondent’s Arguments (Omvati):
- The incident occurred outside the deceased’s house, rendering her alleged role meaningless.
- There was over-implication of family members in the FIR, as six persons were alleged to have shot at the deceased, but only two bullets were recovered.
- Two persons named in the FIR were not charge-sheeted.
- Omvati is sixty years old and had been in custody for three years and ten months.
- 28 out of 58 witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to take time.
- Contact with her son and a relative (the alleged shooter) was not unusual.
State of Rajasthan’s Arguments:
- The High Court did not consider the gravity of the crime while granting bail.
- Parity could not be claimed with co-accused Vijaypal, who was not involved in the incident.
- Omvati was directly involved in the conspiracy of a pre-meditated murder.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) | Sub-Submissions (State of Rajasthan) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Role of the Accused |
|
|
|
| Bail Considerations |
|
|
|
| Parity with Co-Accused |
|
|
|
| Contact with Co-Accused |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to the second respondent, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence against her.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to the second respondent? | The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail. | The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime, the specific role attributed to the second respondent, and had proceeded on an erroneous basis that no overt act was assigned to her. There was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the significant considerations that must be placed in the balance while deciding whether to grant bail. |
| Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to enunciate the considerations which must weigh in the determination of whether bail should be granted. |
| Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | Cited for the principles that guide the Court in assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail. |
| Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a case that consistently followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. |
| Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a case that consistently followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. |
| Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a case that consistently followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. |
| Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka, (2017) 5 SCC 406 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a case that consistently followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. |
| State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra, (2018) 10 SCC 516 | Supreme Court of India | Cited as a case that consistently followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar. |
| Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Koli, (2021) 6 SCC 230 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the considerations which must weigh in the exercise of the power of the appellate court to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons. |
| Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 633 | Supreme Court of India | Cited in the context of the considerations which must weigh in the exercise of the power of the appellate court to determine whether bail has been granted for valid reasons. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the second respondent. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the second respondent.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission that the High Court erred in stating that no overt act was attributed to the second respondent. | The Court agreed with this submission. It noted that the charge sheet indicated that the second respondent was using multiple SIM cards and was in constant contact with the sharp shooter and her son, both co-accused. The Court also noted that she was the custodian of the weapons used in the crime. |
| Appellant’s Submission that the High Court had previously noted that the second respondent was not cooperating with the investigation. | The Court took note of this submission and agreed that it was a relevant factor that the High Court should have considered. |
| Appellant’s Submission that there was no change in circumstances to warrant the grant of bail after four previous rejections. | The Court agreed that there was no change in circumstances and that the High Court had erred in granting bail on the fifth application. |
| Appellant’s Submission that no parity could be claimed with co-accused Vijaypal, who was not charge-sheeted. | The Court agreed with this submission and noted that the High Court erred in granting bail based on parity with Vijaypal. |
| Respondent’s Submission that the incident took place outside the deceased’s house, rendering her alleged role meaningless. | The Court did not find this submission persuasive, as the charge sheet indicated that the second respondent was actively involved in the conspiracy. |
| Respondent’s Submission that there was over-implication of family members in the FIR. | The Court did not find this submission persuasive, as the charge sheet indicated that the second respondent was actively involved in the conspiracy. |
| Respondent’s Submission that Omvati is sixty years old and had been in custody for three years and ten months. | The Court acknowledged that these were factors to be considered but did not find them sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the crime and the evidence against the second respondent. |
| Respondent’s Submission that 28 out of 58 witnesses have been examined, and the trial is likely to take time. | The Court acknowledged that these were factors to be considered but did not find them sufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the crime and the evidence against the second respondent. |
| Respondent’s Submission that contact with her son and a relative (the alleged shooter) was not unusual. | The Court did not find this submission persuasive, as the charge sheet indicated that the second respondent was actively involved in the conspiracy. |
| State of Rajasthan’s Submission that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the crime while granting bail. | The Court agreed with this submission and noted that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the crime. |
| State of Rajasthan’s Submission that no parity could be claimed with co-accused Vijaypal, who was not involved in the incident. | The Court agreed with this submission and noted that the High Court erred in granting bail based on parity with Vijaypal. |
| State of Rajasthan’s Submission that Omvati was directly involved in the conspiracy of a pre-meditated murder. | The Court agreed with this submission. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
✓ Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]: The Court relied on this case to highlight the significant considerations that must be placed in the balance while deciding whether to grant bail, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
✓ Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the principles that guide the determination of whether bail should be granted, particularly the need for a judicious exercise of discretion by the court.
✓ Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]: The Court cited this case for the principles that guide the Court in assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail, emphasizing the need for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously and cautiously.
✓ Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446], Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC 797], Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508], Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka [(2017) 5 SCC 406], and State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra [(2018) 10 SCC 516]: These cases were cited as consistent precedents that have followed the principles laid down in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar, reinforcing the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the accused’s role while deciding on bail.
✓ Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana Koli [(2021) 6 SCC 230] and Harjit Singh v. Inderpreet Singh alias Inder [2021 SCC OnLine SC 633]: These cases were cited to highlight the distinction between the considerations for granting bail and those for canceling bail, emphasizing that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the gravity of the offense and the evidence against the second respondent. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the crime and the specific role attributed to the second respondent. The Court also noted that the High Court had proceeded on the erroneous basis that no overt act was assigned to her. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the deceased was murdered shortly before he was to depose in a previous case, and the second respondent was allegedly following the car of the deceased and providing instructions to the shooter. The fact that the High Court had rejected four previous bail applications and that there was no change in circumstances also weighed in the mind of the Court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Gravity of the Offense | 30% |
| Specific Role of the Accused | 30% |
| Erroneous Basis of High Court | 20% |
| No Change in Circumstances | 10% |
| Impact on Witnesses | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio:
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s reasoning was a combination of factual findings and legal principles. The Court considered the factual aspects of the case, such as the second respondent’s alleged role in the conspiracy, her contact with the shooter, and her possession of the weapons. The Court also considered the legal principles related to the grant of bail, as laid down in various precedents.
- Accused is a woman
- Long custody period
- No overt act assigned
- Bail to co-accused
- Variance in prosecution story
- Delay in trial
- Gravity of the offense
- Specific role of the accused
- Evidence against the accused
- Previous bail rejections
- No change in circumstances
- High Court failed to consider the gravity of the crime.
- High Court proceeded on an erroneous basis.
- There was no change in circumstances.
The Court considered the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail, but rejected it, finding that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the crime, the specific role attributed to the second respondent, and had proceeded on an erroneous basis that no overt act was assigned to her. The Court also noted that there was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail. The Court’s final decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the relevant legal principles.
The Supreme Court’s decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the relevant legal principles. The Court held that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the crime, the specific role attributed to the second respondent, and had proceeded on an erroneous basis that no overt act was assigned to her. The Court also noted that there was no change in circumstances warranting the grant of bail.
The Court quoted from the charge-sheet, “From them analysis of these Call Details, following facts have come to light: 1. Mobile Number: [xxxxxxxx00] (Omvati): – The Call details of this Mobile Number were procured from date 01.08.2017 onwards until the date of occurrence of the case incident and found that said number was active until the date 09.09.2017 after the aforesaid date of 01.08.2017 and its corresponding IMEI Number was found to be [xx xxxxxxxxxx810] . It has also come to light that after said date 09.09.2017, in said mobile phone of IMEI: [xxxxxxxxxxxx810] , some other SIM was found to be active or not to find out the same, the Call Details corresponding to said IMEI No. [xxxxxxxxxxxx810] was obtained for Mobile Number [xxxxxxxx36] in the course of which it came to be known that said Mobile Number was active until the date of incident 11.09.2017.”
The Court also noted, “The mobile number with which the cell phone of the second respondent was in contact with is of the co- accused Prahlad, who is alleged to be a hired sharp-shooter.”
The Court further emphasized, “Moreover, there is a specific allegation that the second respondent has actively aided the commission of the crime by furnishing information about the movements of the deceased ( Daansingh) to the killers.”
There were no minority opinions in this case.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts must consider the seriousness and gravity of the crime, as well as the specific role attributed to the accused, before granting bail.
- The Court reiterated that bail should not be granted based on parity if the co-accused’s case is different.
- The Court highlighted that bail applications should not be granted if there is no change in circumstances from previous rejections.
- The judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant factors and not just the length of custody or the gender of the accused.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the second respondent to surrender on or before 7 November 2021.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not grant bail in a case involving serious offences such as murder without considering the gravity of the crime and the specific role attributed to the accused. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in previous cases regarding the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for a judicious exercise of discretion by the High Court. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the grant of bail.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the second respondent, emphasizing the need for a thorough consideration of the gravity of the offense and the specific role attributed to the accused before granting bail. The judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution and judiciousness while dealing with bail applications in serious criminal cases.