Date of the Judgment: April 19, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 323
Judges: Sanjay Karol, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
Can the High Court grant bail to accused persons in a murder case when there are serious allegations of witness intimidation? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court had granted bail to the accused, despite serious allegations of witness tampering and the gravity of the offense. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized the importance of considering the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the overall impact on society when deciding on bail applications. This judgment is a significant reminder of the principles that guide the grant of bail, especially in heinous crimes.
The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Satish Chandra Sharma, overturned the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad’s decision to grant bail to the accused in a murder case. The Court emphasized that the High Court did not appropriately consider the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the potential impact on society.
Case Background
The case revolves around a First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the Appellant, Ramayan Singh, on January 3, 2022. The FIR stated that on January 2, 2022, at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant, along with his uncle Jitendra Singh (the Deceased) and his driver Rahul, were attacked by several individuals, including Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal (Respondent No. 2) and Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased, shattered the windows of their vehicle with iron rods, and physically assaulted him with iron rods, hockey sticks, and bats. The Deceased was initially taken to a Primary Health Centre and then referred to a District Hospital and later to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow, where he succumbed to his injuries on February 10, 2022.
A post-mortem examination revealed four major ante-mortem head injuries as the cause of death. Respondent No. 2 was apprehended on January 5, 2022, and the murder weapon (a bat) was recovered at his instance. Punit Pal was apprehended on January 7, 2022. A chargesheet was filed on March 14, 2022, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (IPC), including Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302, and 120B, along with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 2, 2022 | Incident occurred: The Deceased was attacked and injured. |
| January 3, 2022 | FIR lodged by the Appellant, Ramayan Singh. |
| January 5, 2022 | Respondent No. 2 (Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal) was apprehended. |
| January 7, 2022 | Punit Pal was apprehended. |
| February 10, 2022 | The Deceased succumbed to his injuries. Inquest report and post-mortem conducted. |
| March 14, 2022 | Chargesheet filed against the accused. |
| March 15, 2022 | Trial Court rejected the bail application of Respondent No. 2. |
| March 29, 2022 | Trial Court rejected the bail application of Punit Pal. |
| April 19, 2023 | Charges were framed against the accused persons. |
| April 24, 2023 | High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 (Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal). |
| October 31, 2023 | High Court granted bail to Punit Pal. |
| April 19, 2024 | Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and cancelled the bail of both accused. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court rejected the bail applications of both Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal on March 15, 2022, and March 29, 2022, respectively. Subsequently, the High Court granted bail to Respondent No. 2 on April 24, 2023, and to Punit Pal on October 31, 2023. The Appellant then filed appeals in the Supreme Court challenging these orders.
Legal Framework
The case involves multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (IPC), including:
- Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
- Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
- Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
- Section 504, IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
- Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
- Section 427, IPC: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
- Section 394, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery.
- Section 411, IPC: Dishonestly receiving stolen property.
- Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
- Section 120B, IPC: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
Additionally, Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013, was also invoked. The Supreme Court also considered Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.
Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions:
- The High Court should not have granted bail, considering that charges had been framed, the murder weapon was recovered from Respondent No. 2, and the Trial Court had previously rejected their bail applications.
- There is a significant risk of witness intimidation, as the accused persons wield substantial influence in the area. This was evidenced by the fact that shops near the incident remained closed for ten days after the incident.
- The accused persons have misused their liberty. The Appellant contended that threats were extended to the Appellant himself by Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal. An identified witness had previously sought police protection due to threats during the trial.
Respondent’s Submissions:
- The accused have been cooperating with the trial, and it is the Appellant who has stalled the proceedings.
- The allegations of threats to the Appellant are false and part of a calculated effort to portray the accused in a negative light.
State of Uttar Pradesh’s Submissions:
- The State supported the Appellant’s stand and highlighted that both accused were also being prosecuted under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| High Court erred in granting bail | Charges framed against the accused | Appellant |
| Recovery of weapon from Respondent No. 2 | Appellant | |
| Trial Court had rejected bail earlier | Appellant | |
| Risk of witness intimidation | Accused persons wield substantial influence in the area | Appellant |
| Shops near the incident remained closed for ten days | Appellant | |
| Misuse of Liberty | Threats extended to the Appellant himself by Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal | Appellant |
| Witness sought police protection due to threats | Appellant | |
| Accused cooperating with trial | Accused cooperating with the trial | Respondent |
| Appellant has stalled proceedings | Respondent | |
| Allegations of threats are false | Part of a calculated effort to portray the accused negatively | Respondent |
| Accused being prosecuted under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 | Accused being prosecuted under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 | State of Uttar Pradesh |
Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellant’s argument regarding the misuse of liberty by the accused, especially the specific instances of witness intimidation and threats to the Appellant, was particularly innovative. It highlighted a critical aspect often overlooked in bail matters, focusing on the accused’s behavior post-arrest and its impact on the fairness of the trial.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The main issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to grant bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal in relation to the proceedings emanating from the FIR?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC to grant bail? | No. The Supreme Court held that the High Court did not appropriately exercise its discretion. | The High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the overall impact of the crime on society. There were also allegations of witness intimidation. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
- Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, Supreme Court of India: This case laid down the parameters for evaluating the correctness of an order granting bail. The Court reiterated that factors such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the danger of the accused absconding, and the likelihood of witnesses being influenced must be considered.
- Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, Supreme Court of India: This case followed Prasanta Kumar Sarkar and emphasized that the grant of bail must balance public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty. It also highlighted that the Court should not interfere with the High Court’s bail order unless the discretion was exercised without due application of mind.
- Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508, Supreme Court of India: This case established that the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to highlight the parameters to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the danger of the accused absconding, and the likelihood of witnesses being influenced. |
| Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to emphasize that the grant of bail must balance public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty. It also highlighted that the Court should not interfere with the High Court’s bail order unless the discretion was exercised without due application of mind. |
| Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 | Supreme Court of India | The Court used this case to reiterate that the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The High Court should not have granted bail, considering that charges had been framed, the murder weapon was recovered from Respondent No. 2, and the Trial Court had previously rejected their bail applications. | The Court agreed with this submission, stating that the High Court should have considered these factors. |
| There is a significant risk of witness intimidation, as the accused persons wield substantial influence in the area. | The Court acknowledged this risk, noting the closure of the market for ten days after the incident as evidence of the accused’s influence. |
| The accused persons have misused their liberty. The Appellant contended that threats were extended to the Appellant himself by Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal. An identified witness had previously sought police protection due to threats during the trial. | The Court took note of these allegations of witness intimidation as a serious concern. |
| The accused have been cooperating with the trial, and it is the Appellant who has stalled the proceedings. | The Court did not find this submission persuasive, given the other factors. |
| The allegations of threats to the Appellant are false and part of a calculated effort to portray the accused in a negative light. | The Court did not find this submission persuasive, given the other factors. |
| The State supported the Appellant’s stand and highlighted that both accused were also being prosecuted under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. | The Court took note of this submission and considered it as a factor against granting bail. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496* to emphasize the parameters to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the severity of the punishment, the danger of the accused absconding, and the likelihood of witnesses being influenced.
- The Court followed Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118* to reiterate that the grant of bail must balance public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty. It also highlighted that the Court should not interfere with the High Court’s bail order unless the discretion was exercised without due application of mind.
- The Court cited Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508* to emphasize that the grant of bail involves the exercise of discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the bail was primarily influenced by the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the overall impact of the crime on society. The Court noted the broad daylight murder, the closure of the market for ten days due to the accused’s influence, and the allegations of witness intimidation. These factors collectively demonstrated that the High Court did not judiciously exercise its discretion in granting bail. The Court emphasized the need to balance individual liberty with the public interest in ensuring fair and just criminal proceedings.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Seriousness of the crime | 35% |
| Conduct of the accused (witness intimidation) | 40% |
| Impact of the crime on society | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court found that the High Court had not given due consideration to the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the impact on society. The Court stated:
“In the aforementioned context, the impugned orders dated 24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 granting bail to accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal, respectively, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside.”
The Court also noted:
“The fulcrum of the dispute before this Court is whether the High Court appropriately exercised its discretion under Section 439 of the CrPC to grant Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating out of the FIR?”
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant factors, stating:
“It is well settled that the grant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously.”
The Court rejected the argument that the accused were cooperating with the trial, finding that the allegations of witness intimidation and the seriousness of the crime outweighed this factor. The Court set aside the High Court’s orders, cancelled the bail of the accused, and directed them to be taken into custody. The Trial Court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court emphasized that the grant of bail is not automatic and must be based on a careful consideration of the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the potential impact on society.
- Allegations of witness intimidation are a critical factor that courts must consider when deciding on bail applications.
- The High Court’s discretion to grant bail is not absolute and is subject to review by the Supreme Court, especially when the High Court does not consider all relevant factors.
- The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that the public interest in the administration of justice must be balanced with individual liberty.
- The Trial Court was directed to expedite the trial, highlighting the need for timely justice.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The bail bonds of the accused, Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal, shall stand cancelled.
- The accused shall be taken into custody forthwith.
- A copy of the judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court and PS Lalganj, Basti, Uttar Pradesh, for necessary compliance.
- The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a year from the date of receipt of the judgment.
Development of Law
This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the grant of bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and allegations of witness intimidation. It does not introduce any new legal doctrines but emphasizes the importance of a balanced approach, considering both individual liberty and public interest. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court must exercise its discretion judiciously and cautiously while granting bail and must consider the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the overall impact of the crime on society.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Ramayan Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reminder of the principles that guide the grant of bail, especially in heinous crimes. The Court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the crime, the conduct of the accused, and the overall impact on society underscores the need for a balanced approach that considers both individual liberty and the public interest. The cancellation of bail in this case serves as a strong message that witness intimidation will not be tolerated and that the justice system must ensure a fair trial for all.