Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Imran vs. Mohammed Bhava & Anr. (22 April 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 419
Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI, Krishna Murari, J., Hima Kohli, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to accused individuals in a murder case without properly considering the seriousness of the crime and the evidence against them? The Supreme Court of India recently tackled this critical question in a case where the High Court had granted bail to two accused individuals, despite serious allegations and evidence against them. This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough evaluation of all relevant factors before granting bail in heinous crimes.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Abdul Lathif, whose son, Imran, is the appellant in this case. On June 5, 2020, Abdul Lathif, along with his son-in-law Badrul Muneer, and Hiyaz, were attacked by a group of individuals. The attack was allegedly the result of a conspiracy hatched by Davood Hakim, who had an enmity with Badrul Muneer. During the assault, Abdul Lathif intervened to protect his son-in-law, but he was chased and fatally assaulted by the group, which included Mohammed Bhava and Mohammed Musthafa, the respondents in this appeal. The initial FIR was registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, and 395 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with section 149 of the IPC. Later, sections 114, 109, and 120B of the IPC were added to the charge sheet.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the sessions court rejected the bail applications of both Accused No. 6 (Mohammed Bhava) and Accused No. 8 (Mohammed Musthafa). However, the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, in separate orders, granted anticipatory bail to Accused No. 6 and regular bail to Accused No. 8. The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the fact that other co-accused had also been granted bail. Subsequently, the High Court itself cancelled the bails of the other accused present at the scene of the offense, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The bail granted to the prime accused was also cancelled by the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 143, IPC: Deals with unlawful assembly.
• Section 147, IPC: Deals with rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 341, IPC: Deals with wrongful restraint.
• Section 307, IPC: Deals with attempt to murder.
• Section 302, IPC: Deals with murder.
• Section 395, IPC: Deals with dacoity.
• Section 149, IPC: Deals with the common object of an unlawful assembly.
• Section 114, IPC: Abettor present when offence is committed.
• Section 109, IPC: Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.
• Section 120B, IPC: Deals with criminal conspiracy.

These sections of the IPC outline the various offenses for which the accused were charged, ranging from unlawful assembly and rioting to murder and criminal conspiracy.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court erred by not considering the gravity of the offenses and the eyewitness accounts.
• The High Court overlooked the material evidence against the respondents.
• Both accused instigated and participated in a heinous crime, making them ineligible for bail.
• Granting bail to the accused poses a threat to prosecution witnesses.
• The High Court failed to exercise its discretion judiciously, as emphasized in Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 598] where it was observed that “grant of bail though discretionary, calls for exercise of such discretion in a judicious manner.”
• The remaining accused, whose bails were cancelled, have not surrendered and are threatening witnesses.

Accused No. 6’s Arguments:

• Accused No. 6 was named in the FIR due to personal animosity and had no role in the offense.
• He was merely trying to separate the people involved in the act and moved away when he failed.
• Relied on the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, as reiterated in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427].
• There is no material evidence to suggest his participation in the offense.

Accused No. 8’s Arguments:

• His name was added to the FIR based on a subsequent statement by the appellant under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
• The appellant is a tool of CW-2 (Badrul Muneer) and his family.
• The allegations against him are omnibus and sweeping, contrary to the material on record.
• Relied on various judgments emphasizing that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancellation of bail, such as Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349], State (Delhi Admn) v. Sanjay Gandhi [(1978) 2 SCC 411], Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh [(1996) 4 SCC 693], CBI v. Subramani Gopalkrishnan [(2011) 5 SCC 296], and X v. State of Telangana [(2020) 16 SCC 511].

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The key issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court exercised its discretion in a mechanical manner while granting bail to the accused, overlooking established principles.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 598] – Supreme Court of India. The court referred to this case to emphasize that the grant of bail should be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course.
• Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427] – Supreme Court of India. The court noted the principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, but distinguished its application in this case.
• Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 854] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to reiterate that bail can be revoked if the lower court ignored relevant material, gravity of the offense, or its societal impact.
• Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349] – Supreme Court of India. This case was referred to for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
• State (Delhi Admn) v. Sanjay Gandhi [(1978) 2 SCC 411] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the accused for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
• Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh [(1996) 4 SCC 693] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the accused for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
• CBI v. Subramani Gopalkrishnan [(2011) 5 SCC 296] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the accused for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
• X v. State of Telangana [(2020) 16 SCC 511] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited by the accused for the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 496] – Supreme Court of India. This case was referred to for the principles that must be considered while deciding upon an application for grant of bail.
• Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [(2016) 15 SCC 422] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to reiterate the factors to be considered while granting bail.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395, 149, 114, 109 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – These sections outline the various offenses for which the accused were charged, ranging from unlawful assembly and rioting to murder and criminal conspiracy.

Authorities Considered by the Court

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 Ram Govind Upadhyay Vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others [(2002) 3 SCC 598]* to emphasize that the grant of bail should be exercised judiciously.
• The Court distinguished Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [(2021) 2 SCC 427]*, stating that while bail is the rule, it does not apply in cases with serious offenses and evidence.
• The Court followed Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 854]*, reiterating that bail can be revoked if the lower court ignored relevant material.
• The Court acknowledged the principle that cancellation of bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances as stated in Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana [(1995) 1 SCC 349]*, State (Delhi Admn) v. Sanjay Gandhi [(1978) 2 SCC 411]*, Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh [(1996) 4 SCC 693]*, CBI v. Subramani Gopalkrishnan [(2011) 5 SCC 296]*, and X v. State of Telangana [(2020) 16 SCC 511]*, but distinguished its application in the present case.
• The Court referred to Prasanta Kumar Sarkar Vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. [(2010) 14 SCC 496]* to reiterate the principles that must be considered while deciding upon an application for grant of bail.
• The Court relied on Neeru Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [(2016) 15 SCC 422]* to reiterate the factors to be considered while granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The gravity of the offense: The court emphasized that the murder was a heinous crime.
• The presence of material evidence: The court noted that there was sufficient evidence against the accused, including eyewitness statements and FSL reports.
• The High Court’s mechanical approach: The court criticized the High Court for granting bail without properly considering the evidence and the seriousness of the crime.
• The need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system: The court stressed the importance of ensuring that bail is not granted in a manner that undermines the administration of justice.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the evidence and the nature of the crime, than by purely legal considerations.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in granting bail to the accused. The court observed that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offenses, the material evidence against the accused, and the established principles for granting bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had acted in a mechanical manner, which led to an unsustainable order.

The Supreme Court, therefore, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court and directed the accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks. Failure to do so would result in the accused being taken into police custody.

“The High Court while granting bail to the accused Respondents, thus failed to consider the nature of accusations and relevant evidentiary material against them.”

“The High Court lost sight of the fact that there exists sufficient material against the accused Respondents herein, so as to establish a prima facie case against them.”

“In view of the above facts and for the reasons stated herein above, impugned orders dated 08.02.2021 and 19.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 6052/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 3902/2020, releasing the Accused No. 6 and 8 on bail, are set aside.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must exercise discretion judiciously while granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• The gravity of the offense and the material evidence against the accused must be thoroughly considered.
• Bail can be revoked by a superior court if the lower court has not considered relevant factors.
• The principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” does not apply in cases with serious offenses and substantial evidence.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of a robust criminal justice system where bail is not granted mechanically.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondents/accused to surrender before the trial court within two weeks from the date of the judgment. Failure to do so would result in them being taken into police custody.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while considering a bail application, the High Court must not act in a mechanical manner and must take into account the gravity of the offense, the material evidence against the accused, and the established principles for granting bail. The judgment clarifies that the principle that “bail is the rule, and jail is the exception” does not apply in cases with serious offenses and substantial evidence. This case reinforces the principle that bail can be revoked by a superior court if the lower court has not considered relevant factors.

Conclusion

In the case of Imran vs. Mohammed Bhava & Anr., the Supreme Court of India cancelled the bail granted by the High Court to two accused individuals in a murder case. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had acted mechanically, overlooking the gravity of the offense and the material evidence against the accused. This judgment reinforces the importance of a thorough evaluation of all relevant factors before granting bail in heinous crimes, ensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.