Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 265

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to accused individuals in a murder case without providing substantial reasons and overlooking the seriousness of the charges? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in the case of Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. This judgment highlights the importance of considering the nature and gravity of offenses when granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes like murder. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing that the High Court did not provide adequate reasons for its decision and failed to consider the seriousness of the allegations against the accused.

Case Background

The case revolves around a violent incident stemming from a property dispute. The complainant’s family and the accused’s family had an ongoing land dispute. On the night of the incident, the accused allegedly drove a tractor over the standing crops on the complainant’s field and attempted to take possession of the land. When the complainant and others gathered at the spot, they were attacked by the accused. During the attack, the complainant’s brother, Sompal, was killed, and others were seriously injured. The First Information Report (FIR) named Narendra, Krishanpal, and Harendra as the accused. The complainant also identified them in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to the accused, Narendra, Krishanpal, and Harendra, in three separate orders dated 04.03.2022, 19.01.2022, and 09.02.2022, respectively. The complainant appealed these orders to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had not properly considered the seriousness of the offenses and the evidence against the accused. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide cogent reasons for granting bail and had not considered the gravity of the offenses.

Legal Framework

The case involves several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The relevant sections include:

• Sections 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC: These sections deal with rioting and being a member of an unlawful assembly. Section 149 specifies that if an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of that assembly, every person who was a member of the same assembly at the time of the committing of that offense is guilty of that offense.
• Sections 323, 324, 427, 441, 447, 506 of the IPC: These sections relate to offenses such as causing hurt, mischief, criminal trespass, and criminal intimidation.
• Section 307 of the IPC: This section deals with the attempt to commit murder.
• Section 302 of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the issuance of a proclamation for a person absconding.
• Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.: This section deals with the examination of witnesses by the police.

Arguments

The complainant argued that the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses, including murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The complainant highlighted that the accused, Narendra and Harendra, had absconded and surrendered only after the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. Further, the complainant pointed out that a country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of the accused Narendra and Harendra. The complainant also emphasized that all the accused were specifically named in the FIR and in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant also argued that the High Court did not properly appreciate the fact that all the accused were part of an unlawful assembly, and the accused, Krishanpal, used his tractor to destroy the crops. The complainant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which had previously cancelled the bail of Mehtab, the father of two of the accused, in the same case.

The accused argued that they had been on bail since early 2022 and had not misused their liberty. They also submitted that the trial had already begun. The accused contended that the family members of Mehtab, the father of the accused, were falsely implicated in the case due to a land dispute.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused persons in a case involving serious offenses, including murder, without considering the gravity of the offenses and the evidence against them.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused. The Court held that the High Court had failed to provide cogent reasons for granting bail and had not considered the seriousness of the offenses. The Court emphasized that the accused were facing trial for serious offenses, including murder, and the High Court should have given due consideration to the gravity of the charges.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s failure to adequately consider the seriousness of the offenses and the evidence against the accused when granting bail. The Court emphasized that in cases involving serious crimes like murder, the High Court must provide cogent reasons for granting bail. The Court also noted that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly, which further aggravated the situation. The fact that the accused had absconded and surrendered only after a proclamation was issued against them also weighed against them.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal principles governing the grant of bail in serious criminal cases. The Court emphasized that the High Court had not followed these principles, which resulted in the cancellation of bail. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the legal process was followed correctly and that the seriousness of the offenses was duly considered.

Key Takeaways

• The High Court must provide cogent reasons while granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
• The nature and gravity of the offenses must be given due consideration when deciding on bail applications.
• The fact that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly and had absconded are relevant factors that should be considered while deciding on bail.
• The Supreme Court will not hesitate to set aside orders of the High Court that do not adhere to the principles of granting bail in serious criminal cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused, Narendra s/o Mehtab, Krishanpal s/o Rakam Singh, and Harendra s/o Mehtab, to surrender before the concerned jail authorities forthwith. If they fail to do so, they are to be taken into custody immediately.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court must provide cogent reasons while granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of considering the nature and gravity of the offenses, the evidence against the accused, and other relevant factors before granting bail. It also clarifies that the mere fact that the accused have been on bail for some time without misusing their liberty cannot validate an improper grant of bail. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the existing principles of granting bail.

Conclusion

In Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision and had not considered the seriousness of the offenses and the evidence against the accused. This judgment serves as a reminder that the High Courts must exercise caution and follow established legal principles while granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious crimes.