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

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 January 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 99
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 accused’s criminal history? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the High Court of Judicature at Patna granted bail to an accused charged with murder, despite the seriousness of the offense and the accused’s prior criminal record. The Supreme Court, in this judgment, emphasized the importance of reasoned orders and the consideration of all relevant factors while granting bail in serious criminal cases. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Shardanand Bhagat. The appellant, Sunil Kumar, the younger brother of the deceased, lodged a First Information Report (F.I.R.) at the Vaishali Police Station in Bihar. The F.I.R. named Ramawatar Bhagat (respondent No. 2) and others as accused 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 prosecution’s case was that on the date of the incident, the accused, armed with lethal weapons, came to the informant’s bamboo clumps and started cutting bamboos. When Shardanand Bhagat intervened, Ramawatar Bhagat ordered his killing. Shardanand Bhagat was then chased and shot by co-accused Manish Kumar. The informant was also injured when co-accused Rambabu Kumar fired at him. Shardanand Bhagat later died due to his injuries.

The Sessions Court rejected Ramawatar Bhagat’s bail application, noting his active participation in the heinous offense. However, the High Court of Judicature at Patna granted bail to Ramawatar Bhagat without providing any detailed reasoning.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court rejected the bail application of Ramawatar Bhagat, observing his active involvement in the crime and the formation of an unlawful assembly that led to Shardanand Bhagat’s murder. The court emphasized the gravity of the offense and concluded that no grounds for bail were established. Subsequently, Ramawatar Bhagat filed an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The High Court, without providing any cogent reasons, granted bail to Ramawatar Bhagat, stating it was inclined to accept the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel. This order was challenged by the original informant, Sunil Kumar, in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with offenses such as rioting, unlawful assembly, wrongful restraint, causing hurt, mischief, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, attempt to murder and murder.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the use of prohibited arms.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the power of the High Court or Court of Sessions to grant bail.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the nature of the evidence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the potential impact of their release on the witnesses and society. The court also stressed that bail orders must be reasoned and not merely a summary acceptance of submissions made by the accused.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sunil Kumar):

• The High Court erred in granting bail without assigning proper reasons, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in cases such as Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230 and Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118.
• The High Court failed to consider the relevant factors for granting bail, as outlined in Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129, including the seriousness of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• The High Court ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused, including his involvement in a double murder case.
• The High Court did not appreciate the distinct features of the case compared to the co-accused who was granted bail.
• The accused was threatening the informant and witnesses to withdraw the case or turn hostile.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court should not have granted bail in a serious case involving murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The accused was charge-sheeted for offenses including murder.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ramawatar Bhagat):

• The High Court had considered all facts and circumstances before granting bail, and the order should not be interfered with.
• The respondent is a 70-year-old senior citizen with various ailments and has no involvement in the alleged offenses.
• The respondent’s involvement in previous cases was not concealed and was discussed by 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.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the respondent No.2/accused on bail, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly when the High Court has not assigned any reasons while releasing the accused on bail?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on 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 Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230* and Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118* to emphasize the need for reasoned orders while granting bail. The court reiterated that it is the duty of the court to apply a judicial mind and record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.
• The Supreme Court cited Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528* to highlight that the court granting bail should exercise its discretion judiciously and provide reasons, especially in serious offenses.
• The Supreme Court referred to Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2018) 12 SCC 129* to emphasize the relevant considerations for granting bail, including the nature of the offense, character of evidence, and likelihood of the accused fleeing justice.
• The Supreme Court used In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP & Anr., (2016) 15 SCC 422* to stress the importance of considering the criminal antecedents of the accused and the need for judicious discretion in granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The High Court’s failure to provide any reasoning for granting bail, which indicated a non-application of mind.
• The gravity and seriousness of the offense, which involved murder.
• The criminal antecedents of the accused, who was involved in a double murder case.
• The potential threat to witnesses and the informant due to the accused’s release.
• The need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal justice and protect the rights of victims and their families.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the High Court’s order and found it to be lacking in several aspects. The court emphasized that while granting bail, especially in serious cases, the High Court must provide reasoned orders, considering the gravity of the offense, the nature of the evidence, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the potential impact on witnesses and society. The court noted that the High Court’s order merely stated that it was inclined to grant bail without any further explanation. This was deemed insufficient and indicative of a non-application of mind by the High Court.

The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not consider the criminal history of the accused, who was involved in a double murder case. The court also highlighted that the High Court failed to appreciate the distinct features of the case compared to a co-accused who was granted bail. The court noted that the accused was allegedly threatening the informant and witnesses, which was a crucial factor that the High Court overlooked. The Supreme Court stated that the High Court’s order was passed mechanically and in a perfunctory manner.

The Supreme Court relied on several precedents to emphasize the need for reasoned orders and the consideration of relevant factors while granting bail. The court quoted from 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.” The court also quoted from Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, stating: “Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind.” Further, the court quoted from Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230, stating: “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 Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s order was unsustainable and set it aside. The court directed the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority or court forthwith.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases.
• Courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the nature of the evidence, and the criminal antecedents of the accused.
• The potential impact of the accused’s release on witnesses and society must be taken into account.
• Bail orders should not be based on parity alone without considering the distinct features of each case.
• Failure to consider relevant factors and provide adequate reasoning can lead to the cancellation of bail by higher courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the respondent No.2 accused should surrender before the concerned jail authority or the concerned Court forthwith.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the grant of bail. It emphasizes that while granting bail, particularly in serious offenses, the High Courts must provide reasoned orders that reflect a careful consideration of all relevant factors. The judgment reiterates that bail orders should not be a mere formality but should be based on a judicious application of mind, considering the gravity of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the potential impact on witnesses and society. This judgment serves as a reminder to the High Courts to exercise their discretion judiciously and not in a perfunctory manner when dealing with bail applications in serious criminal cases. The ratio decidendi of the case is that the High Court must provide reasoned orders while granting bail, especially in serious criminal cases, and must consider the gravity of the offense, criminal antecedents of the accused, and potential impact on witnesses.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused, Ramawatar Bhagat. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to provide adequate reasoning and had overlooked the gravity of the offense and the criminal antecedents of the accused. The court reiterated the importance of reasoned orders and the consideration of all relevant factors while granting bail in serious criminal cases. The accused was directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority or court forthwith. This judgment underscores the need for High Courts to exercise judicial discretion judiciously and responsibly when dealing with bail applications.