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

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

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

Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case by misinterpreting critical facts? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, highlighting the importance of accurate fact application and consideration of the gravity of the offense when granting bail. This case involves a father’s appeal against the release of his son’s alleged murderers on bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

Case Background

The appellant, Manno Lal Jaiswal, filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the respondents and others for the murder of his son. The accused were charged 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, noting 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 current appeal by the original complainant.

Timeline:

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The High Court incorrectly stated that the accused were not named in the FIR. The appellant argued that the accused were named in the FIR from the beginning and that the Sessions Court also acknowledged this fact while rejecting their bail applications.
• The High Court wrongly stated that the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) were recorded after an inordinate delay of more than 20 days. The appellant submitted that the statements were recorded on the day of the incident.
• The High Court failed to consider the gravity and nature of the offenses, especially that the offense was under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to unlawful assembly. The appellant argued that the individual role of each accused was not significant since they acted with a common intention.
• The High Court’s order was mechanical and without proper application of mind, failing to consider relevant factors for granting bail as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 129].

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court should not have granted bail in such grave offenses under Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC.

Accused’s Arguments:

• The accused’s counsel clarified that it was never their case that they were not named in the FIR or that the statements of witnesses were recorded belatedly.
• The accused argued that their role was limited to using a wicket, and there was no evidence that they used any deadly weapon or caused injury on the vital part of the deceased. They also highlighted that they had been in jail since 26 August 2019 and 5 September 2020, respectively, and had no criminal antecedents.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the following issues were addressed:

1. Whether the High Court erred in granting bail by misapplying the facts of the case, specifically regarding the naming of the accused in the FIR and the timing of witness statements.
2. Whether the High Court properly considered the gravity and nature of the offenses, particularly those under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the IPC.
3. Whether the High Court’s order was mechanical and without proper application of mind, failing to consider relevant factors for granting bail as per the precedent set in Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 129].

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Cases:

• Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 129] – Supreme Court of India. This case was cited to emphasize the relevant considerations for granting bail, such as the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact on prosecution witnesses, the impact on society, and the likelihood of tampering.

Legal Provisions:

• Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections pertain to rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, attempt to murder, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, respectively.
• Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This section deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 129]*: The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight that the High Court had not considered the relevant factors for granting bail. The court emphasized that the High Court should have considered the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact on prosecution witnesses, the impact on society, and the likelihood of tampering, as outlined in this authority.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s misapplication of facts and its failure to consider the gravity of the offenses. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order was mechanical and did not adhere to the principles laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that bail is not granted lightly, especially in serious offenses like murder, and that all relevant factors are duly considered.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides, emphasizing that the High Court had not properly applied the facts of the case. The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the accused were not named in the FIR and that the witness statements were recorded belatedly. The Court also rejected the argument that the individual role of each accused was the primary consideration, especially when the charges included Section 149 of the IPC. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had not considered the relevant factors for granting bail as laid down in Anil Kumar Yadav. The final decision was reached by emphasizing the need for a thorough and reasoned approach to granting bail, especially in serious offenses.

The Supreme Court stated:

• “Despite the fact that all the accused persons were named in the FIR and even the statements of relevant witnesses under Section 161 Cr.PC were recorded on the very day, on applying the wrong facts, the High Court has released respective respondents No.2 on bail.”
• “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…”
• “Even otherwise, the High Court has also not considered the relevant considerations while grant of bail as observed and held by this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Yadav (supra).”

There was no minority opinion. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the final decision.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual errors made by the High Court and its failure to consider the gravity of the offenses. The legal interpretation was grounded in the principles established in Anil Kumar Yadav, which requires a thorough consideration of various factors before granting bail. The application of these principles to the facts of the case led the Supreme Court to conclude that the High Court’s decision was unsustainable.

This decision has implications for future cases by emphasizing the need for High Courts to be meticulous in their application of facts and to consider all relevant factors while granting bail, especially in serious offenses. It reinforces the importance of following established legal principles and precedents.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must ensure accurate application of facts while considering bail applications.
• The gravity and nature of the offense, especially those involving unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the IPC, must be carefully considered.
• Bail orders must be reasoned and should consider the factors outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav, including the nature of the offense, evidence, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.
• The judgment reinforces the principle that bail should not be granted mechanically, especially in serious offenses like murder.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused. The Court directed the accused to surrender forthwith. However, the Court clarified that the observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the bail and the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial and decide the same in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence led by both sides.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must not grant bail mechanically, especially in serious offenses, and must ensure accurate application of facts and consider the gravity of the offense and relevant factors as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the considerations for granting bail and does not introduce any new legal principles. However, it serves as a strong reminder of the need for a thorough and reasoned approach in bail matters, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s bail orders. The Court emphasized that the High Court had misapplied the facts, failed to consider the gravity of the offenses, and issued a mechanical order without proper reasoning. The accused were directed to surrender, and the Trial Court was instructed to proceed with the trial based on the evidence presented.