Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Lack of Reasoning: Puran Mal vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: March 10, 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 208

Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose

Can a High Court overturn a Trial Court’s decision to deny bail in a serious murder case without providing clear and compelling reasons? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the importance of reasoned orders, especially in matters of personal liberty. This case revolves around the cancellation of bail granted by the High Court in a murder case, highlighting the necessity for higher courts to justify their decisions when differing from lower courts. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The case involves a murder that occurred between the night of June 16 and 17, 2020. The deceased, brother of the complainant Puran Mal, sustained fatal injuries. There was a history of rivalry between the deceased and the accused, Mahesh Kumar (respondent no. 2). On the evening of June 16, 2020, a scuffle took place between them, during which the deceased sustained injuries and filed a complaint at the police station at 8:00 PM. The deceased then went to the hospital for treatment. The prosecution alleged that Mahesh Kumar also reached the hospital and called his son, who then attacked the deceased with a knife, leading to his death.

The Trial Court had rejected Mahesh Kumar’s bail application twice. However, the High Court granted him bail, which led to the complainant filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court had twice rejected the bail application of the accused, Mahesh Kumar. Subsequently, the High Court granted bail to Mahesh Kumar. The complainant then appealed to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition, challenging the legality of the High Court’s order.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. The Supreme Court also considered Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertains to the power of the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail. The court also considered Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which pertains to criminal conspiracy.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 2[imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states:

“Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.”

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 states:

“Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.—(1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct—
(a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-section (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section;
(b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified:
Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of the opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice.
(2) A High Court or Court of Session may exercise the powers under sub-section (1) in respect of a person who has been released on bail under this Chapter by a Magistrate.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Puran Mal):

• The appellant argued that there was a long-standing rivalry between the deceased and respondent no. 2.
• On the evening of June 16, 2020, there was a scuffle where the deceased sustained injuries and filed a police complaint.
• The respondent no. 2 reached the hospital and called his son, who then attacked the deceased with a knife, leading to his death.
• The Trial Court had twice rejected the bail application of respondent no. 2, and the High Court granted bail without considering these aspects or providing cogent reasons.
• After being released on bail, the respondent no. 2 allegedly threatened the family members of the deceased.
• Charges have been framed against the respondent no. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

State of Haryana’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant’s case.
• It was submitted that when the Trial Court had rejected bail twice with detailed reasons, the High Court should have provided proper reasons for granting bail.

Respondent’s Arguments (Mahesh Kumar):

• The High Court considered the discrepancies in the FIR and the complainant’s statement regarding the role assigned to respondent no. 2.
• The High Court also considered the CCTV footage before granting bail.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent no. 2, especially when the Trial Court had rejected his bail application twice, without providing cogent reasons.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 559] – The Court held that at the stage of granting bail, the Court should be satisfied of a prima facie case and detailed examination of evidence is not necessary.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598] – The Court opined that once the High Court refuses bail, to consider such a plea and grant bail subsequently must be supported by reasons.
• Jaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 58] – The Court emphasized the need for a bail order in serious offenses to be supported by reasons.
• Sabir vs. Bhoora & Nadeem & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2022) – The Court emphasized the need for a bail order in serious offenses to be supported by reasons.
• Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2021) SCC Online SC 1280] – The Court emphasized the need for a bail order in serious offenses to be supported by reasons.
• X vs. State of Telangana and Anr. [(2018) 16 SCC 511] – The Court emphasized the need for a bail order in serious offenses to be supported by reasons.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528] – The Court held that the gravity of the offense alleged is an important factor for considering the question of grant of bail.
• Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2020) 11 SCC 648] – The Court sustained the High Court’s bail order as there was no error in the exercise of discretion by the High Court.
• State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21] – The Court considered the post-release conduct of the accused and set aside the bail order because the High Court failed to consider the materials collected by the investigating agency.

Authority Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no. 2. The Court emphasized that when a Trial Court has rejected bail twice, the High Court must provide cogent and valid reasons for granting bail. The Court noted that the High Court did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense, the fact that the respondent’s son stabbed the deceased in his presence, and the call records between the respondent and his son. The Court also considered the allegations that the respondent threatened the family of the deceased after being released on bail.

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Niranjan Singh & Anr. vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote & Ors. [(1980) 2 SCC 559]* to reiterate that a prima facie case must be established for bail.
• The Court cited Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [(2002) 3 SCC 598]* to emphasize that subsequent bail grants must be supported by reasons.
• The Court followed Jaibunisha vs. Meharban & Anr. [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 58]*, Sabir vs. Bhoora & Nadeem & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No.227 of 2022)*, Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar & Anr. [(2021) SCC Online SC 1280]*, and X vs. State of Telangana and Anr. [(2018) 16 SCC 511]* to underscore the necessity of reasoned bail orders in serious offenses.
• The Court referred to Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528]* to highlight that the gravity of the offense is an important factor in bail considerations.
• The Court distinguished Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [(2020) 11 SCC 648]* as that case had no error in the exercise of discretion by the High Court.
• The Court followed State of U.P. through CBI vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21]* to emphasize that the materials collected by the investigating agency must be considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The gravity of the offense (murder) and the serious allegations against the accused.
• The fact that the Trial Court had twice rejected the bail application, indicating a strong prima facie case against the accused.
• The High Court’s failure to provide cogent and valid reasons for granting bail, especially when differing from the Trial Court’s view.
• The presence of CCTV footage and call records linking the accused to the crime.
• Allegations of the accused threatening the family of the deceased after being released on bail.
• The fact that the accused was in custody for a short period of four months before being granted bail.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was a blend of factual considerations and legal principles. The factual elements included the circumstances of the crime, the evidence against the accused, and his conduct. The legal considerations involved the principles of bail, the need for reasoned orders, and the importance of the gravity of the offense. The court emphasized that while granting bail is a discretionary remedy, it must be exercised judiciously, especially in serious cases.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide clear and valid reasons when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• When a Trial Court has rejected bail multiple times, the High Court must justify its decision with strong reasoning.
• The gravity of the offense is a significant factor in bail considerations.
• Courts should consider the conduct of the accused, including any threats to witnesses or the victim’s family.
• Orders granting bail should not be passed without considering the materials collected by the investigating agency.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent no. 2 by the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when a Trial Court has rejected bail twice, the High Court must provide cogent and valid reasons for granting bail. The Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that higher courts must provide well-reasoned orders, especially when differing from lower court decisions, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. This case does not create a new position of law, but rather reiterates and reinforces the existing principles regarding the grant of bail.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Puran Mal vs. State of Haryana underscores the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters, particularly in serious criminal cases. The Court emphasized that High Courts must provide clear and compelling reasons when overturning a Trial Court’s decision to deny bail. This case serves as a reminder that the power to grant bail is a discretionary remedy that must be exercised judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense and the need to protect the interests of justice.