Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Case: Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (28 March 2023)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused in a case involving serious offenses such as murder, without providing sufficient reasons.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Judgment Date: 28 March 2023

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 28 March 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 310
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can a High Court grant bail to individuals accused of serious offenses like murder without providing substantial reasons? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, ultimately canceling the bail granted by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The case revolves around a violent incident stemming from a property dispute that led to the death of one person and injuries to others. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for cogent reasoning when granting bail in cases involving grave offenses. Justice M.R. Shah authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case originates from a property dispute between the family of the complainant and the family of the accused, specifically between Mehtab and the complainant’s side. On the night of the incident, the accused allegedly drove a tractor over the standing crops and attempted to take possession of the land. When the complainant and others gathered at the spot, they were attacked by the accused. This attack resulted in the death of the complainant’s brother, Sompal, and serious injuries to other individuals. An FIR was filed with the Falavda Police Station in Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, against the accused, including Narendra, Krishanpal, and Harendra, for offenses including murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad granted bail to Narendra, Krishanpal, and Harendra through separate orders dated 4 March 2022, 19 January 2022 and 9 February 2022, respectively. The complainant, dissatisfied with these orders, appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not provide sufficient reasons for granting bail, especially considering the serious nature of the offenses, including murder, and that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly.

Legal Framework

The case involves multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), including:

• Section 147, IPC: Punishment for rioting.
• Section 148, IPC: Rioting, armed with a deadly weapon.
• Section 149, IPC: Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
• Section 324, IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 427, IPC: Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees.
• Section 441, IPC: Criminal trespass.
• Section 323, IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
• Section 506, IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation.
• Section 447, IPC: Punishment for criminal trespass.
• Section 307, IPC: Attempt to murder.
• Section 302, IPC: Punishment for murder.
• Section 34, IPC: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Additionally, the case references Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the proclamation for a person absconding.

Arguments

The complainant argued that the High Court erred in granting bail, especially considering the seriousness of the offenses, including murder, under Section 302 of the IPC. The complainant highlighted that the accused, Narendra and Harendra, surrendered only after a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against them, indicating their attempt to evade arrest. The complainant also pointed out that a country-made pistol was recovered at the instance of Narendra and Harendra. They were all specifically named in the FIR and in the complainant’s statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The complainant also argued that the High Court failed to consider that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly, and that Narendra and Harendra are sons of Mehtab, with whom there was a property dispute. The complainant also mentioned that the accused Krishanpal was also part of the unlawful assembly and his tractor was used to destroy the crops. The complainant relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2022), where the bail of Mehtab, father of Narendra and Harendra, was canceled in the same case.

The accused argued that they have been on bail since early 2022 and have not misused their liberty. They also argued that the trial has begun and that they were falsely implicated due to a land dispute with their father, Mehtab.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering the nature and gravity of the offenses and the lack of cogent reasons in the High Court’s orders.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The Supreme Court addressed the issue by examining the High Court’s orders and finding that they lacked proper reasoning. The Court emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the seriousness of the offenses, the fact that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly, and the specific allegations against them in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2022) – Supreme Court of India: This case, concerning the same crime, had previously cancelled the bail of Mehtab, the father of two of the accused.

The court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections pertain to various offenses including rioting, attempt to murder, and murder.
• Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the proclamation for a person absconding.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders granting bail were unsustainable. The Court noted that the High Court had not provided any cogent reasons for granting bail, especially considering the serious nature of the offenses. The Supreme Court also emphasized that the High Court failed to consider the fact that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly and that they were specifically named in the FIR and the statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of cogent reasons provided by the High Court while granting bail. The Court emphasized the seriousness of the offenses, including murder, and the fact that the accused were part of an unlawful assembly. The Court also considered the fact that the accused had surrendered only after a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was issued against them. The previous decision of the Supreme Court in Yashpal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 1509/2022), where the bail of Mehtab, father of two of the accused, was cancelled, also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the accused had been on bail without misuse of liberty, stating that the primary consideration was the validity of the High Court’s orders. The Court also rejected the argument that the trial had begun, holding that this was not a sufficient ground to uphold unsustainable bail orders. The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment, “Except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the State, no further independent reasons have been given by the High Court while releasing the respective accused on bail.” The Court also noted, “It is to be noted that in one of the impugned orders, the High Court has noted the reason of overcrowding of jails. However, for the serious offences like this, the aforesaid cannot be the consideration to release the respective accused on bail.” The Court further stated, “All the three accused were part of the unlawful assembly and the independent overt act cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, once they are found to be part of the unlawful assembly.”

The Supreme Court did not discuss any minority opinions as it was a unanimous decision.

Key Takeaways

✓ High Courts must provide cogent reasons when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
✓ The seriousness of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the evidence against them are crucial factors to consider when granting bail.
✓ Being part of an unlawful assembly is a significant factor that cannot be ignored while considering bail applications.
✓ The fact that an accused surrendered only after a proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. is a relevant consideration against granting bail.
✓ Overcrowding of jails is not a valid reason for granting bail in serious offences.
✓ This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not a matter of course, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused, namely, Narendra s/o Mehtab, Krishanpal s/o Rakam Singh, and Harendra s/o Mehtab, to surrender before the concerned jail authorities forthwith. The Court also directed that if the accused fail to surrender, they should be taken into custody immediately.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide cogent reasons when granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. This ruling reinforces the existing legal position that bail is not a matter of course, especially in grave offenses, and sets a clear precedent that the lack of reasoning by the High Court is sufficient grounds for the Supreme Court to intervene and cancel bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Yashpal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh highlights the importance of reasoned orders by High Courts when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The Court’s emphasis on the need for cogent reasons and its rejection of arguments based on the accused’s behavior after being granted bail reinforces the principle that bail decisions must be based on a thorough consideration of the facts, the nature of the offenses, and the evidence against the accused. The judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts that the gravity of the offenses and the conduct of the accused should be given due consideration.