Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case, Denies Anticipatory Bail in Counter FIR: Laxman Prasad Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 December 2021
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1551 OF 2021 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.3285/2021)
Judges: Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice A.S. Bopanna
Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case and deny anticipatory bail in a related counter-FIR without providing sufficient reasoning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a violent clash and cross-FIRs. The core issue was whether the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, had appropriately exercised its discretion in granting bail to some accused while denying anticipatory bail to others, all stemming from the same incident. The Supreme Court, finding the High Court’s orders lacking in proper reasoning, set aside the bail orders and denied anticipatory bail, emphasizing the need for reasoned judicial decisions, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The judgment was authored by Justice A.S. Bopanna, with Justice D.Y. Chandrachud concurring.

Case Background

The case involves a violent clash that occurred on 08 May 2020, in Pratapgarh District, Uttar Pradesh. This incident led to two FIRs being filed. The first FIR, No. 406 of 2020, was lodged by Laxman Prasad Pandey on 09 May 2020, at 16:30 hours, alleging that he and his associates were attacked by Sarvesh Tiwari and others when they went to seek the return of money. The complaint stated that the attackers were armed with weapons and fired upon them, resulting in the death of Laxman Prasad Pandey’s brother, Ram Prasad Pandey.

Subsequently, a counter-FIR, No. 407 of 2020, was filed by Sarvesh Tiwari on 12 May 2020, at 16:14 hours. Sarvesh Tiwari alleged that Laxman Prasad Pandey and his associates, armed with illegal weapons, attacked him and his group, resulting in injuries to Anand Tiwari and others.

The High Court granted bail to the accused in FIR No. 406/2020 and rejected the anticipatory bail applications of the accused in FIR No. 407/2020. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The legal framework of this case primarily involves the following provisions:

• Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with offenses related to rioting, unlawful assembly, attempt to murder, murder, disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant and criminal conspiracy.
• Section 27/30 of the Arms Act: These sections pertain to the use and possession of illegal arms.

These provisions are invoked in the context of a violent clash where firearms were allegedly used, resulting in death and injuries. The application and interpretation of these sections are central to the case.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellants (Laxman Prasad Pandey and others):

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020, as the charges included serious offenses such as murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and violations of the Arms Act.
• They contended that the High Court did not provide sufficient reasoning for granting bail, merely referring to the rival contentions without proper analysis, contrary to the principles laid down in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. [(2020) 2 SCC 118].
• They argued that they were the victims who had gone to seek return of money and were attacked by the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020.
• They claimed that the FIR No. 407 of 2020 was a counterblast and an afterthought, filed belatedly on 12.05.2020.
• They submitted that the medical certificate of Anand Tiwari, who was allegedly injured in FIR No. 407 of 2020, showed only simple injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, not gunshot wounds.
• They argued that since they were available to cooperate in the investigation, anticipatory bail should have been granted in FIR No. 407 of 2020.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Uttar Pradesh and others):

• The respondents argued that the High Court had considered the contentions and the period of incarceration before granting bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020.
• They contended that the High Court’s exercise of discretion should not be interfered with.
• The State argued that both FIRs related to the same incident of 08.05.2020, involving a group clash and indiscriminate firing.
• They submitted that the accused in both sets of cases were not entitled to bail due to the serious nature of the offenses and the ongoing investigation, and the criminal history of the accused.
• They stated that the investigation in FIR No. 407 of 2020 could not be completed as the accused did not cooperate after obtaining interim protection.
• They argued that the injured person in FIR No. 407 of 2020 was still undergoing treatment, indicating the severity of the injuries.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020, despite the serious charges, including murder, and without providing adequate reasoning.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the anticipatory bail applications of the accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020, given the allegations and counter-allegations.
3. Whether the High Court’s orders were in line with the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the grant or rejection of bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. [(2020) 2 SCC 118]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders in bail matters. The court found that the High Court’s orders were not in line with the principles laid down in this case.

✓ Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528]*: The Supreme Court followed this authority to highlight that while a detailed examination of evidence is not required at the bail stage, there is a need to indicate reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses.

✓ Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to highlight the seriousness of the charges against the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020.

✓ Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered this provision to highlight the seriousness of the charges against the accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020.

✓ Section 27/30 of the Arms Act: The court considered this provision to highlight the seriousness of the allegations in both FIRs involving the use of firearms.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Lack of Reasoned Orders: The High Court’s failure to provide detailed reasons for granting bail in FIR No. 406 of 2020 was a significant concern. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial orders, especially in bail matters, must clearly articulate the reasons for the decision.
• Seriousness of Offenses: The charges in both FIRs involved grave offenses, including murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), along with violations of the Arms Act. The court considered the gravity of these offenses as a major factor against granting bail.
• Ongoing Investigation: The court noted that the investigation in FIR No. 407 of 2020 was still ongoing and that the accused had not cooperated, which further weighed against granting anticipatory bail.
• Criminal History: The criminal history of one of the accused was also a factor that the court considered against granting bail.
• Need for Composite Consideration: The court emphasized that a composite consideration was required in the further process of investigation, framing charges, and trial.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Supreme Court’s decision was more heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), such as the need for reasoned orders and the seriousness of the charges, than by the factual aspects of the case (30%).

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the facts, the legal provisions involved, and the precedents set by earlier cases. The court emphasized the importance of following established legal principles and ensuring that judicial decisions are well-reasoned and transparent.

The court rejected the argument that FIR No. 407 of 2020 was a counterblast, stating:

“the delay as alleged in filing the complaint would not be material at this stage since the ultimate reference is to the very same incident dated 08.05.2020.”

The court also noted the seriousness of the allegations in both FIRs, stating:

“the allegation is of indiscriminate firing which has also resulted in the death of Ram Prasad Pandey, the brother of the complainant.”

The court reiterated the need for reasoned decisions, quoting:

“Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order.”

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment are:

• Need for Reasoned Orders: High Courts must provide detailed reasoning when granting or rejecting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. A mere reference to rival contentions is not sufficient.
• Seriousness of Offenses: The gravity of offenses like murder and attempt to murder must be given due consideration while deciding bail applications.
• Cooperation in Investigation: Accused persons are expected to cooperate with the investigation. Non-cooperation can be a factor against granting bail.
• Composite Consideration: In cases involving cross-FIRs related to the same incident, courts must take a composite view of the matter during investigation, framing of charges, and trial.
• Criminal History: The criminal history of the accused is a relevant factor to be considered while deciding bail applications.

This judgment underscores the importance of reasoned judicial decisions and adherence to established legal principles, particularly in cases involving serious criminal charges. It reinforces the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. The orders dated 16.03.2021, 17.12.2020, and 26.07.2021 passed by the High Court in Bail Applications No. 1694/2021, 9559/2020, and 3876/2021 were set aside, and the bail granted by the High Court was cancelled.
2. The bail bonds executed by Anjani Kumar Shukla, Rahul @ Monu Tiwari, and Raj Kumar Maurya were cancelled, and they were directed to be taken into custody.
3. The Criminal Appeals No. 1551/2021, 1554-1555/2021, and 1553/2021 were allowed.
4. The Criminal Appeals No. 1556/2021, 1552/2021, 1558/2021, and 1557/2021 seeking anticipatory bail were dismissed.
5. The interim orders passed during the pendency of these proceedings were dissolved.
6. The appellants in Criminal Appeals No. 1556/2021, 1552/2021, 1558/2021, and 1557/2021 were allowed to surrender and seek regular bail, which would be considered on its own merits.
7. The order was not to be an impediment for the trial court or High Court to consider applications of any of the accused at the appropriate stage.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting or rejecting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The judgment reinforces the principles laid down in Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr. [(2020) 2 SCC 118] and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [(2004) 7 SCC 528], emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability in the judicial process. This case does not introduce new doctrines but clarifies the existing legal position regarding bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Laxman Prasad Pandey vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. sets aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused in FIR No. 406 of 2020 and dismisses the anticipatory bail applications of the accused in FIR No. 407 of 2020. The Supreme Court emphasized the need for reasoned judicial orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses, and reiterated the importance of following established legal principlesand precedents. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring transparency and accountability in the legal process and serves as a reminder of the importance of reasoned decisions in bail matters.