Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Sunil Kumar vs. State of Bihar (25 January 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 74

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

Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case without providing sufficient reasons and overlooking the criminal history of the accused? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, emphasizing the need for judicial discipline and reasoned orders when granting bail, particularly in serious offenses. The Court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the gravity of the crime and the accused’s background, ensuring a balance between individual liberty and public interest. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case originates from a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by Sunil Kumar, the younger brother of the deceased, Shardanand Bhagat, at the Vaishali, Bihar Police Station. The F.I.R. named several accused, including Ramawatar Bhagat (respondent No. 2), for offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The charges stemmed from an incident where the accused allegedly assaulted and fatally injured Shardanand Bhagat.

According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident, the accused, armed with weapons, began cutting bamboos at the informant’s property. When Shardanand Bhagat intervened, Ramawatar Bhagat allegedly ordered his killing. Shardanand Bhagat was then chased and shot by another accused, Manish Kumar, leading to his death. The informant, Sunil Kumar, was also injured when another accused, Rambabu Kumar, fired at him. The accused also assaulted the informant with sticks before fleeing the scene. Shardanand Bhagat later died from his injuries.

The Sessions Court rejected Ramawatar Bhagat’s bail application, citing his active participation in the heinous offense and the formation of an unlawful assembly that led to Shardanand Bhagat’s death. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna granted bail to Ramawatar Bhagat without providing sufficient reasons, leading to the current appeal by the informant, Sunil Kumar.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court rejected the bail application of Ramawatar Bhagat, noting his active involvement in the crime. The court also highlighted that the accused formed an unlawful assembly resulting in the death of Shardanand Bhagat. Subsequently, Ramawatar Bhagat appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court, without providing detailed reasoning, granted bail, stating it was inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel. This decision led to the informant, Sunil Kumar, appealing to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Arms Act:

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 341, IPC: Punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 427, IPC: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
• Section 504, IPC: Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 307, IPC: Attempt to murder.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act: Punishment for using arms.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

These provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Arms Act, are central to the criminal charges against the accused, while Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) governs the High Court’s power to grant bail. The Supreme Court’s judgment emphasizes the importance of applying judicial discretion judiciously when granting bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sunil Kumar):

• The High Court erred in granting bail to the accused, Ramawatar Bhagat, in a case involving murder.
• The High Court did not provide sufficient reasons for granting bail, merely stating that it was inclined to accept the submissions of the accused’s counsel.
• The High Court failed to consider the gravity and nature of the offense.
• The High Court did not consider relevant factors for granting bail, such as the seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, the impact on witnesses, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.
• The High Court ignored the accused’s criminal history, including his involvement in a double murder case where he is accused of killing the informant’s father and younger brother.
• The High Court failed to consider that the accused was threatening and pressuring the informant to withdraw the case or turn hostile.
• The High Court incorrectly relied on parity with another co-accused, Shashi Bhushan Bhagat, whose case was different from that of Ramawatar Bhagat.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant’s arguments, stating that the High Court should not have granted bail in such a serious case involving murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The State emphasized that the accused had been charge-sheeted for offenses including murder under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 34 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Respondent’s Arguments (Ramawatar Bhagat):

• The High Court granted bail after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and this should not be interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• The respondent is a 70-year-old senior citizen with various ailments and has no involvement in the alleged offenses.
• His previous involvement in two cases was disclosed and discussed in the High Court.
• The evidence in the previous cases is almost complete, and the respondent has not misused the liberty granted to him in the past 30 years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent No. 2 without assigning any cogent reasons and without considering the gravity and nature of the offences alleged against the accused.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230*: The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that while granting bail, the High Court must apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons.
• Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118*: The Supreme Court emphasized that reasoned judicial orders are necessary when granting bail and that the reasons must be recorded in the order.
• Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021)*: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the High Court must consider relevant factors while granting bail.
• Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129*: The Supreme Court highlighted the relevant considerations for granting bail, including the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, and the impact on witnesses.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528*: The Supreme Court stressed that the court should exercise its discretion judiciously and provide reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422*: The Supreme Court emphasized that the criminal antecedents of the accused must be considered while deciding on bail and that the doctrine of parity should not be the sole consideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order and the failure to consider the gravity of the offense and the accused’s criminal history. The Court emphasized the need for judicial discipline and reasoned orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The Court also highlighted that while granting bail, the courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, the impact on witnesses, and the possibility of tampering with evidence.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and reasoned orders, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The Court highlighted that while granting bail, the courts must consider the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing, the impact on witnesses, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The Court also noted that the High Court had not considered the criminal antecedents of the accused, which is a crucial factor in deciding bail applications.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118, stating:

“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 Court also quoted from Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528:

“The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.”

Additionally, the Court quoted from Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230:

“The duty to record reasons is a significant safeguard which ensures that the discretion which is entrusted to the court is exercised in a judicious manner. The recording of reasons in a judicial order ensures that the thought process underlying the order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice.”

The Court also considered the criminal antecedents of the accused, noting that he was involved in a double murder case, as highlighted in Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422, where the court emphasized that criminal history must be considered while deciding on bail.

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was unsustainable, and set aside the order, directing the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide sufficient reasoning when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• Courts must consider the gravity and nature of the offense, as well as the criminal history of the accused, when deciding on bail applications.
• The doctrine of parity should not be the sole consideration for granting bail; each case must be assessed on its own merits.
• Judicial discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, with a balance between individual liberty and public interest.
• Failure to consider relevant factors and provide reasoned orders can lead to the cancellation of bail by higher courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondent No. 2 and directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority or court forthwith.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder, and must consider the gravity of the offense and the criminal history of the accused. This judgment reinforces existing legal principles and underscores the importance of judicial discipline in bail matters. It emphasizes that granting bail is not a mere formality but a judicial exercise that requires a thorough assessment of all relevant factors. The Supreme Court did not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirmed the existing position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. underscores the critical importance of reasoned judicial orders and the careful consideration of relevant factors when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The Court’s action in canceling the bail granted by the High Court highlights the need for High Courts to exercise their discretion judiciously, taking into account the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the accused, and the potential impact on witnesses and the community. This judgment serves as a reminder that bail is not a matter of course but a judicial function that must be exercised with due diligence and responsibility.