Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case Due to Non-Application of Mind by High Court: Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2022) INSC 477 (20 May 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 20 May 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 477
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J.
Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case without properly considering the facts, evidence, and criminal history of the accused? The Supreme Court recently addressed this critical question in an appeal against a High Court order granting bail to an accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances, and therefore, cancelled the bail. This case highlights the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters, especially in serious offenses. The judgment was authored by Justice Krishna Murari, with Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justice Hima Kohli concurring.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Mr. Virendera Yadav. On the night of 08 January 2021, Mr. Virendera Yadav was shot while returning home. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 09 January 2021, by his son, Deepak Yadav, the appellant in this case. The FIR named Harjeet Yadav (Respondent No. 2) and Sushil Kumar Yadav, along with two unknown persons, as the accused. The FIR was initially filed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for attempted murder, but was later converted to Section 302 IPC for murder after Mr. Virendera Yadav succumbed to his injuries on 14 January 2021. The deceased, before passing away, had identified Harjeet Yadav as one of the shooters to his wife in the presence of a police officer.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Sessions Judge, Lucknow, rejected the bail application of Harjeet Yadav on 28 June 2021, noting that the deceased had identified him as the shooter. Subsequently, Harjeet Yadav approached the High Court seeking bail, arguing that the co-accused, Sushil Kumar Yadav, had already been granted bail. The High Court granted bail to Harjeet Yadav on 22 October 2021, citing parity with the co-accused and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, without delving into the specific facts of the case or the criminal history of the accused. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which governs the grant of bail by the High Court or the Sessions Court. The Court emphasized that the power to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, considering various factors such as the nature and gravity of the offense, the evidence against the accused, and the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses or absconding. The Court also referred to Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, but clarified that this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the interests of justice.

The relevant legal provisions discussed in the judgment include:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers the High Court or the Sessions Court to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Deepak Yadav):

• The High Court granted bail to Harjeet Yadav in a casual manner, merely on the ground of parity, without considering his role in the crime and his criminal antecedents.
• Harjeet Yadav was specifically named in the FIR and by the deceased as the person who shot him.
• The High Court did not give the appellant or the State an opportunity to respond to the bail application.
• The High Court should have considered the seriousness of the offense before granting bail.

Respondent’s Arguments (Harjeet Yadav):

• Harjeet Yadav was a young student with no criminal antecedents.
• The case against him under the Arms Act was an offshoot of the present case.
• The deceased’s statement did not specifically mention Harjeet Yadav, but rather referred to “Ratilal’s younger son.”
• The High Court considered all relevant factors before granting bail.

Innovativeness of the argument: The Appellant’s argument was innovative in emphasizing that the High Court should not have granted bail merely on the basis of parity, especially in a serious offense like murder, and should have considered the specific role of the accused and his criminal history.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) for grant of regular bail in the facts of the present case.

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:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid down in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT of Delhi And Another [CITATION], Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashish Chatterjee And Another [CITATION], and other cases to emphasize the factors to be considered while granting bail.
• The Court also relied on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana(Koli) & Another [CITATION] to highlight the importance of recording reasons for granting bail.
• The Court cited Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another [CITATION] to reiterate that bail can be cancelled if the order granting bail was unjustified, illegal, or perverse.
• The Court also cited Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia And Another [CITATION] to emphasize that an appellate court can set aside a bail order if relevant factors were not considered.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• Non-application of mind by the High Court: The High Court granted bail without considering the relevant facts, evidence, and the criminal history of the accused.
• Seriousness of the offense: The accused was charged with murder, a serious offense.
• Specific role of the accused: The accused was specifically named in the FIR and by the deceased as the shooter.
• Criminal history of the accused: The accused had a criminal history, which was not considered by the High Court.
• Parity as the sole ground for bail: The High Court granted bail merely on the ground of parity with the co-accused, without considering the specific role and circumstances of the accused.

The sentiment of the Court was that the High Court had failed in its duty to exercise its discretion judiciously and cautiously, especially in a case involving a serious offense like murder.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court had not applied its mind to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. The High Court had granted bail merely on the basis of parity with the co-accused, without considering the specific role of the accused, his criminal history, and the seriousness of the offense. The Supreme Court emphasized that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, especially in serious offenses, and that the court must consider all relevant factors before granting bail. The court also noted that the High Court had failed to provide adequate reasons for granting bail, which is essential for ensuring that the discretion of the court is exercised judiciously.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“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. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed.”

“The grant of bail is a matter which implicates the liberty of the accused, the interest of the State and the victims of crime in the proper administration of criminal justice. It is a well-settled principle that in determining as to whether bail should be granted, the High Court, or for that matter, the Sessions Court deciding an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C would not launch upon a detailed evaluation of the facts on merits since a criminal trial is still to take place.”

“Grant of bail to the Respondent No.2/Accused only on the basis of parity shows that the impugned order passed by the High Court suffers from the vice of non-application of mind rendering it unsustainable.”

There were no minority opinions in this case as the bench was unanimous in its decision.

The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future cases, as it reinforces the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters and the need for courts to consider all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in serious offenses. The decision also clarifies that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail and that the court must consider the specific role of the accused and their criminal history.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously and cautiously while granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Parity with a co-accused cannot be the sole ground for granting bail.
• Courts must consider all relevant factors, including the nature of the offense, the evidence against the accused, the criminal history of the accused, and the possibility of the accused tampering with witnesses or absconding.
• Orders granting bail must be reasoned and should indicate the factors that weighed in the mind of the court.
• An appellate court can set aside an order granting bail if the court failed to consider relevant factors.

This judgment underscores the need for a balanced approach that protects individual liberty while ensuring the proper administration of justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to Harjeet Yadav and directed him to surrender within one week from the date of the order. If he fails to surrender, the concerned police authorities were directed to take him into custody.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s order granting bail was unsustainable due to non-application of mind and failure to consider relevant factors. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail should not be granted as a matter of course, especially in serious offenses, and that parity cannot be the sole ground for granting bail. It also emphasizes the importance of reasoned orders in bail matters.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. is a significant ruling that clarifies the principles governing the grant of bail. The Court emphasized that High Courts must exercise their discretion judiciously and cautiously, considering all relevant factors before granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder. The decision serves as a reminder that bail should not be granted casually or merely on the basis of parity, and that reasoned orders are essential to ensure the proper administration of justice. The cancellation of bail in this case underscores the importance of a thorough and careful consideration of all aspects of a case before granting bail.