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 77

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

Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case without providing clear reasons? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. The Court emphasized that High Courts must provide detailed reasoning when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder. This case highlights the importance of judicial accountability and the need to consider all relevant factors before releasing an accused on bail. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR lodged by Sunil Kumar, the younger brother of the deceased, Shardanand Bhagat, at the Vaishali, Bihar Police Station. The FIR named Ramawatar Bhagat (respondent No. 2) and others 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 killed Shardanand Bhagat.

According to the prosecution, on the day of the incident, Ramawatar Bhagat and other accused individuals, armed with weapons, went to the informant’s bamboo clumps and began cutting the bamboos. When Shardanand Bhagat intervened, Ramawatar Bhagat allegedly ordered his killing. Shardanand Bhagat tried to flee but was chased and surrounded. Co-accused Manish Kumar then shot Shardanand Bhagat with a rifle, causing him to fall. When Sunil Kumar tried to help his brother, co-accused Rambabu Kumar shot at him, injuring him as well. The accused then assaulted Sunil Kumar with lathis and dandas before fleeing. Shardanand Bhagat later died from his injuries.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court rejected Ramawatar Bhagat’s bail application, noting his active participation in the heinous offense and the formation of an unlawful assembly that led to Shardanand Bhagat’s death. The court emphasized the gravity of the case and found no grounds for bail.

Subsequently, Ramawatar Bhagat approached the High Court of Judicature at Patna under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The High Court, without providing detailed reasons, granted bail to Ramawatar Bhagat. The High Court’s order merely stated that it was “inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel” after considering “the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case.”

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Sunil Kumar, the original informant and younger brother of the deceased, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

• ✓ Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC: These sections deal with rioting, rioting armed with a deadly weapon, and the liability of members of an unlawful assembly for offenses committed in furtherance of their common object.
• ✓ Sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, and 506 of the IPC: These sections pertain to wrongful restraint, voluntarily causing hurt, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means, mischief causing damage, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, and criminal intimidation, respectively.
• ✓ Section 307 of the IPC: This section deals with attempt to murder.
• ✓ Section 302 of the IPC: This section defines the punishment for murder.
• ✓ Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the punishment for using arms in contravention of the law.
• ✓ Section 439 of the CrPC: This section empowers the High Court or Court of Session to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Sunil Kumar):

• ✓ The High Court erred in granting bail to Ramawatar Bhagat without providing sufficient reasons, especially in a case involving murder.
• ✓ The High Court failed to consider the gravity and nature of the offense, as well as the relevant factors for granting bail as established by the Supreme Court in various decisions.
• ✓ The High Court did not consider the criminal antecedents of Ramawatar Bhagat, who was also an accused in a double murder case (the murder of the informant’s father and younger brother) where the trial was at the stage of recording evidence.
• ✓ The High Court overlooked the fact that Ramawatar Bhagat was allegedly threatening and pressuring the informant to withdraw the earlier case or turn hostile.
• ✓ The High Court’s decision was based on parity with another co-accused, Shashi Bhushan Bhagat, without appreciating the distinct features of their cases.

State’s Arguments:

• ✓ The State supported the appellant’s arguments, contending that the High Court should not have granted bail in such a serious case involving murder.
• ✓ Ramawatar Bhagat was charge-sheeted for offenses including Section 302 of the IPC, making the grant of bail inappropriate.

Respondent’s Arguments (Ramawatar Bhagat):

• ✓ The High Court had considered all facts and circumstances before granting bail, and the Supreme Court should not interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
• ✓ Ramawatar Bhagat is a 70-year-old senior citizen with various ailments and was not involved in the alleged offenses.
• ✓ His involvement in previous cases was disclosed to the court and discussed in the impugned order.
• ✓ The evidence in the previous cases was almost complete, with only the doctor and investigating officer remaining to be examined.
• ✓ He was on bail in the earlier case and had not misused his liberty for 30 years.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in releasing the respondent No.2 – accused on bail in a case where one person is killed?
2. Whether the High Court has assigned sufficient reasons while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail?
3. Whether the High Court has considered the relevant considerations while granting bail?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to reach its decision:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• ✓ The High Court’s failure to provide any substantive reasoning for granting bail. The court noted that the High Court merely stated it was “inclined to accept the submissions” without any detailed analysis.
• ✓ The gravity and seriousness of the offense. The court emphasized that murder is a heinous crime, and bail should not be granted lightly.
• ✓ The criminal antecedents of the accused. The court found it significant that Ramawatar Bhagat was also an accused in a double murder case and had a history of criminal activity.
• ✓ The potential impact on witnesses and the justice system. The court noted the allegations that Ramawatar Bhagat was threatening witnesses, which could impede the trial process.
• ✓ The need for judicial accountability. The court stressed that decisions on bail should be reasoned and transparent, not arbitrary or perfunctory.

Logical Reasoning

Reasoning of the Court

The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the High Court’s order and found it to be deficient in several respects. The Court emphasized that while granting bail, High Courts must provide reasoned orders, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. The Court observed that the High Court’s order was devoid of any substantive reasoning, merely stating that it was “inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.”

The Court highlighted the importance of judicial discretion, stating that it must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. The Court noted that the High Court failed to consider the gravity and seriousness of the offenses alleged against the accused, Ramawatar Bhagat. The Court emphasized that the nature of the offense, the character of the evidence, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice, the impact of his release on witnesses, and the likelihood of tampering are all relevant considerations that must be taken into account.

The Court also took note of the criminal antecedents of the accused, observing that he was involved in a double murder case and was allegedly threatening witnesses. The Court emphasized that these factors should have been considered by the High Court before granting bail. The Supreme Court stated, “The High Court has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged.”

The Supreme Court also 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 further quoted 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.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must provide detailed and reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder.
• ✓ Courts must consider the gravity and seriousness of the offense, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and the potential impact on witnesses and society.
• ✓ Judicial discretion must be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
• ✓ Decisions on bail should be transparent and accountable.
• ✓ Criminal antecedents of the accused must be considered while deciding on bail.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to Ramawatar Bhagat. The Court directed Ramawatar Bhagat to surrender before the concerned jail authority or the concerned court immediately.

Development of Law

The Supreme Court’s judgment reinforces the established principles regarding the grant of bail, emphasizing the need for reasoned orders and the consideration of relevant factors. The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide detailed reasons while granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder, and must consider the criminal history of the accused, the gravity of the offense, and the potential impact on the justice system. The judgment does not introduce any new legal principles but rather reaffirms the existing legal framework and the need for its strict adherence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Sunil Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and Anr. underscores the critical need for High Courts to exercise judicial discretion responsibly and transparently when granting bail, particularly in serious criminal cases. The judgment serves as a reminder that bail decisions should not be made arbitrarily but should be based on a thorough consideration of all relevant factors, including the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the accused, and the potential impact on witnesses and the justice system. The Supreme Court’s decision to cancel the bail granted by the High Court reaffirms the importance of reasoned judicial orders and judicial accountability.