Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Factual Errors: Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 25, 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: M. R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case based on incorrect facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of factual accuracy and consideration of the gravity of the offense when granting bail. This case arose from a murder where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the accused, which was challenged by the deceased’s father. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for a thorough assessment of facts and circumstances before granting bail in serious criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The appellant, Manno Lal Jaiswal, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondents, accusing them of murdering his son. The FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at P.S. Barhaj, District Deoria. The Sessions Court rejected the bail applications of the accused after reviewing the case diary and other documents. The Sessions Court noted that the accused were named in the FIR and were alleged to have attacked the deceased with weapons, leading to his death. Subsequently, the accused approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which granted them bail, leading to the present appeals by the original complainant.

Timeline

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Shri Vijay Kumar Shukla, argued that the High Court made critical errors in granting bail. He contended that the High Court incorrectly stated that the accused were not named in the FIR and that witness statements were recorded after a delay. He emphasized that the accused were named in the FIR from the beginning, and the witness statements were recorded on the day of the incident. He further argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offense, especially the charge under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to unlawful assembly. The State, represented by Shri Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, supported the appellant’s arguments, stating that the High Court should not have granted bail in such grave offenses.

The accused’s counsel, Shri Krishna M. Singh, countered that it was never their case that the accused were not named in the FIR or that witness statements were delayed. However, he argued that the role attributed to the accused was minor, as they allegedly used a wicket and did not cause fatal injuries. He also highlighted that the accused had been in jail for a considerable time and had no criminal antecedents.

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 erred in granting bail to the accused by misinterpreting the facts and overlooking the gravity of the offenses, particularly under Section 149 of the IPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129:* The Court relied on this authority to emphasize the relevant considerations for granting bail, which the High Court had failed to consider.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The High Court had applied incorrect facts, stating that the accused were not named in the FIR and that the witness statements were recorded belatedly.
• The High Court failed to appreciate the charges under Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC along with Section 302 of the IPC.
• The High Court did not consider the gravity and nature of the offenses.
• The High Court did not provide sufficient reasons for granting bail, merely stating that the submissions made on behalf of the accused were “prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.”
• The High Court did not consider the relevant factors for granting bail as laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129, including the seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of their release on witnesses and society, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.

The Court noted that the High Court’s order was unsustainable both on facts and law. The Supreme Court emphasized that when accused are charged under Section 149 of the IPC, the individual role is not significant, and the High Court should have considered the common intention of the unlawful assembly.

The Supreme Court stated, “Therefore, it appears that the High Court has granted the bail to respective respondents No.2 in such serious offences in which one person was killed mechanically and without applying the correct facts.”

The Supreme Court further observed, “Even otherwise the High Court has not at all appreciated the fact that all the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 149 also along with Section 302 of the IPC.”

The Court also noted, “The High Court has not adverted to the gravity and nature of the offences at all. Even no reasons are assigned by the High Court except observing in one paragraph.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the factual inaccuracies in the High Court’s order and the failure to consider the gravity of the offenses. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to established principles for granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like murder.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must ensure factual accuracy when granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.
• The gravity of the offense, particularly charges under Section 149 of the IPC, must be carefully considered.
• Courts must provide sufficient reasoning for granting bail, not merely relying on general observations.
• The relevant considerations for granting bail, as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129, must be adhered to.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s bail orders and directed the respondents to surrender forthwith. The Court also directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial and decide the case based on the evidence led by both sides, without being influenced by the observations made in this order, which were confined to the purpose of deciding the bail.

Development of Law

This judgment reinforces the importance of factual accuracy and the consideration of the gravity of offenses when granting bail. It highlights that High Courts must not grant bail mechanically but must apply their minds to the facts and circumstances of each case. The judgment also reiterates the principles laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another; (2018) 12 SCC 129, emphasizing the need to consider the seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, and the potential impact on witnesses and society.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. is a significant reminder of the need for High Courts to exercise caution and diligence when granting bail, particularly in serious criminal cases. By setting aside the High Court’s bail orders, the Supreme Court has reinforced the importance of factual accuracy, the gravity of the offenses, and the need to adhere to established principles for granting bail. This judgment serves as a crucial precedent for future bail decisions, emphasizing the need for a thorough and reasoned approach.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Bail
  • Murder
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Unlawful Assembly
  • Criminal Procedure Code
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh case?

A: The main issue was whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused in a murder case by misinterpreting facts and overlooking the gravity of the offenses.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s bail orders, finding that the High Court had made factual errors and failed to consider the gravity of the offenses and relevant factors for granting bail.

Q: What is Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)?

A: Section 149 of the IPC deals with the vicarious liability of members of an unlawful assembly. If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense.

Q: What are the key factors that courts should consider when granting bail?

A: According to the Supreme Court, the key factors include the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of their release on witnesses and society, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence.

Q: What does this judgment mean for future bail decisions?

A: This judgment emphasizes the need for High Courts to exercise caution and diligence when granting bail, particularly in serious criminal cases. It reinforces the importance of factual accuracy, the gravity of the offenses, and the need to adhere to established principles for granting bail.