Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Factual Errors: Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (25 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 97

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

Can a High Court grant bail based on incorrect facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, setting aside a bail order by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case involved a murder where the High Court incorrectly stated that the accused were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and that witness statements were recorded belatedly. The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justices M. R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, found these facts to be incorrect and subsequently cancelled the bail.

Case Background

The appellant, Manno Lal Jaiswal, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondents, accusing them of murdering his son. The FIR stated that the accused, with a common intention, attacked the deceased with weapons like swords, hockey sticks, and rods. The Sessions Court rejected the bail applications of the accused after reviewing the case diary and other documents, noting that the accused were named in the FIR and that witnesses supported the incident in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC). The accused then approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which granted them bail based on what the Supreme Court later determined to be incorrect facts.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court rejected the bail applications of the accused, observing that they were named in the FIR and that witness statements supported the charges. The accused then filed applications under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, seeking bail. The High Court granted bail, stating that the accused were not named in the FIR and that the witness statements were recorded after a delay. The original complainant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):

• 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 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 307, IPC: Attempt to murder.
• Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

The case also references Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), which deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Manno Lal Jaiswal):

• The High Court erred by stating that the accused were not named in the FIR. The appellant argued that the accused were named from the beginning.
• The High Court incorrectly stated that the witness statements under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) were recorded after a delay of 20 days. The appellant clarified that the statements were recorded on the day of the incident.
• The High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offenses, especially under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), where the common intention of the accused is significant.
• The High Court’s order was mechanical, lacking proper reasoning and failing to consider relevant factors for granting bail as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court should not have granted bail for such serious offenses under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Respondents’ Arguments (Accused):

• The respondents argued that the High Court did not commit any error in granting bail. They clarified that it was never their case that they were not named in the FIR or that witness statements were recorded belatedly.
• The respondents submitted that their role was limited to using a wicket, not a deadly weapon, and they did not cause injury to a vital part of the deceased’s body. They also highlighted that they had been in jail since 26 August 2019 and 5 September 2020, respectively, and had no prior criminal record.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the following:

1. Whether the High Court erred in granting bail based on incorrect facts.
2. Whether the High Court considered the gravity of the offenses and the principles for granting bail.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

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

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the factual inaccuracies in the High Court’s judgment and the lack of proper reasoning in granting bail. The Court emphasized that the High Court had overlooked key facts, such as the accused being named in the FIR and the witness statements being recorded on the day of the incident. Additionally, the Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offenses, especially the common intention element under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and did not adhere to the principles for granting bail as laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129. The Supreme Court was also concerned that the High Court’s order was mechanical and lacked sufficient reasoning.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments of both sides and found that the High Court’s decision was based on incorrect facts and lacked proper reasoning. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had overlooked key facts and failed to consider the relevant legal principles for granting bail. The Court also considered the gravity of the offenses and the need to ensure that bail is not granted lightly in serious cases. The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the facts and the law, finding that the High Court had not applied the correct legal standards.

The Supreme Court quoted from the High Court’s order:

“The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.”

The Supreme Court found that this was not sufficient reasoning for granting bail.

The Court noted that the High Court had not considered the relevant factors for granting bail as laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129, which include:

• Nature and seriousness of the offense.
• Character of the evidence and circumstances peculiar to the accused.
• Likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.
• Impact of release on prosecution witnesses and society.
• Likelihood of tampering.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was unsustainable both on facts and law.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must ensure factual accuracy when granting bail.
• Bail orders must be supported by proper reasoning and consideration of relevant factors.
• The gravity of the offense, especially under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), must be considered.
• Individual roles are less significant when the accused are charged under Section 149 of the IPC.
• Courts must adhere to the principles for granting bail as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s bail orders. The accused were directed to surrender forthwith. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial and decide the case based on the evidence led by both sides. The observations made in the Supreme Court’s order were confined to the purpose of deciding the bail only.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must ensure factual accuracy and provide proper reasoning when granting bail, especially in serious offenses. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles for granting bail as laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129. This case also clarifies that when accused are charged under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the individual role is not significant. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise caution and diligence in bail matters and to adhere to established legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. highlights the importance of factual accuracy and reasoned decision-making in bail matters. The Court set aside the High Court’s bail order due to factual errors and lack of proper reasoning, emphasizing the need for lower courts to consider the gravity of offenses and adhere to established legal principles. This judgment reinforces the significance of due diligence and adherence to legal standards in the criminal justice system.