Supreme Court Cancels Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case: Ishwarji Nagaji Mali vs. State of Gujarat (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022
Citation: Ishwarji Nagaji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, Criminal Appeal No. 70 of 2022
Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can an accused, charged with a serious offense like murder and criminal conspiracy, be granted bail merely because the case is based on circumstantial evidence and the accused has ties to the community? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, setting aside a High Court order that had granted bail in such circumstances. This case highlights the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence collected during investigation, rather than just the nature of the evidence and the accused’s social standing.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, delivered the judgment, with Justice M.R. Shah authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the morning of December 26, 2020, at approximately 7:00 AM, Daxaben, accompanied by her husband (respondent no. 2), was walking when she was struck by a speeding four-wheeler. The vehicle, a colored Swift Desire, immediately fled the scene. Initially, the incident was reported as an accident, with the respondent no. 2’s cousin lodging a First Information Report (FIR) against unknown persons for offenses under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 177, 184, and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

However, during the investigation, analysis of call details between respondent no. 2 and his friend, Kirtikumar Kanaji, revealed a conspiracy to murder Daxaben. It was alleged that respondent no. 2 had paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the driver of the Swift car to intentionally hit his wife, making it appear as an accident. Subsequently, charges under Sections 302 (murder), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 114 (abettor present when offense committed) of the IPC were added against respondent no. 2 and other co-accused.

The respondent no. 2’s bail application was initially rejected by the Sessions Court. However, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad granted him bail, leading to the present appeal by the deceased’s father.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent no. 2 initially filed a regular bail application before the Sessions Court, which was rejected on May 19, 2021. Subsequently, he filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Application before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court allowed the application and granted bail to respondent no. 2. The High Court, in its order, observed that the prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the accused had deep roots in society, with no apprehension of him fleeing or tampering with evidence. The father of the deceased then appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 120(B) of the IPC: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. “Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.”
• Section 114 of the IPC: This section addresses the abettor present when the offense is committed. “Whenever any person who, if absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.”
• Section 304A of the IPC: This section deals with causing death by negligence.
• Sections 177, 184, and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act: These sections relate to offenses under the Motor Vehicles Act.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers the High Court or Court of Sessions to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Father of the deceased) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in granting bail without considering the seriousness of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation.
• The High Court did not address the material collected during the investigation that formed part of the charge sheet.
• The High Court’s reasoning that the case was based on circumstantial evidence was insufficient to grant bail.
• The High Court’s order was contrary to the law laid down in Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, [(2021) 6 SCC 630], Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021), and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, [(2020) 2 SCC 118].
• The respondent no. 2 had a financial motive, having taken an accidental insurance policy in the joint names of himself and his wife for Rs. 60 lakhs shortly before her death.
• Call details showed that respondent no. 2 was in contact with the co-accused before the incident.

State of Gujarat’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant, arguing that the High Court should not have released respondent no. 2 on bail given the nature and gravity of the offense.
• The State contended that a detailed investigation had led to a charge sheet against respondent no. 2 and other co-accused for murder and criminal conspiracy.

Respondent no. 2’s Arguments:

• The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet had been filed.
• Custodial interrogation of respondent no. 2 was no longer required.
• The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence.
• The High Court was justified in granting bail.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to respondent no. 2, who was accused of murder and criminal conspiracy, based on the grounds that the case rested on circumstantial evidence and the accused had roots in society.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent no. 2. The Court held that the High Court had failed to consider the seriousness of the offense, the material collected during the investigation, and the charge sheet. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s reasons for granting bail were not germane, and the fact that the case was based on circumstantial evidence was not a sufficient ground to grant bail.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, [(1978) 1 SCC 240]:* The Court used this case to highlight the importance of considering the nature of the charge and the evidence when granting bail.
• Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS, [(2001) 4 SCC 280]:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the need to consider the nature of accusations, evidence, and severity of punishment when deciding on bail.
• Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh, [(2002) 3 SCC 598]:* The Court cited this case to underscore that bail should not be granted as a matter of course and must be based on sound reasoning.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr., [(2004) 7 SCC 528]:* The Court used this case to emphasize that while a detailed examination of evidence is not required, the court must provide prima facie reasons for granting bail.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee, [(2010) 14 SCC 496]:* The Court cited this case to highlight that a mechanical grant of bail without application of mind is illegal.
• Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr., [(2016) 15 SCC 422]:* The Court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of considering the criminal antecedents of the accused.
• Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2018) 12 SCC 129]:* The Court used this case to list the relevant considerations for granting bail, including the nature and seriousness of the offense.
• Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, [(2021) 6 SCC 630]:* The Court cited this case to emphasize that the court must apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for granting bail.
• Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021):* The Court followed this precedent to support its decision to set aside the High Court’s order.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, [(2020) 2 SCC 118]:* The Court followed this precedent to support its decision to set aside the High Court’s order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s failure to consider the seriousness of the offense, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the charge sheet. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s reasons for granting bail—that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and that the accused had roots in society—were insufficient, especially in a case involving murder and criminal conspiracy. The court reiterated the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence before granting bail.

The court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the legal precedents and principles governing the grant of bail, which emphasize the need to consider the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence. The court also highlighted the need to apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for granting bail, which the High Court had failed to do.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations that would support the High Court’s decision. The Court’s reasoning was focused on the legal principles and precedents that emphasize the need to consider the gravity of the offense and the prima facie evidence before granting bail. The Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning as insufficient and not in line with established legal principles.

The decision was that the High Court’s order was unsustainable on both law and facts. The court stated that “Merely because the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence cannot be a ground to release the accused on bail, if during the course of the investigation the evidence/material has been collected and prima facie the complete chain of events is established.” The court also noted that “In a case of committing the offence under Section 302 read with 120B IPC and in a case of hatching conspiracy to kill his wife and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the aforesaid can hardly be a ground to release the accused on bail.” The Court further emphasized that “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Bail cannot be granted solely based on the fact that a case rests on circumstantial evidence.
• The seriousness of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation must be considered.
• The accused’s social standing and lack of apprehension of fleeing are not sufficient grounds for bail in serious offenses.
• High Courts must apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for granting bail.
• The order of the court granting bail should be reasoned and not mechanical.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed respondent no. 2 to surrender before the concerned Court/Jail authorities within one week from the date of the judgment. The Court also clarified that the observations made in the judgment were for the purpose of deciding the question of bail only and that the trial court should proceed with the trial in accordance with the law and based on the evidence led by both sides.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court’s order granting bail was unsustainable as it did not consider the seriousness of the offense, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the charge sheet. The court has reiterated that the fact that a case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a sufficient ground to grant bail if a prima facie case is made out. This case reinforces the principle that bail should be granted judiciously, considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence, and not merely based on the accused’s social standing or the nature of the evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali vs. State of Gujarat is a significant one, emphasizing that bail decisions must be based on a thorough consideration of the seriousness of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court’s ruling serves as a reminder that the nature of the evidence (circumstantial or direct) and the accused’s social standing are not the sole determinants for granting bail, especially in serious offenses like murder and criminal conspiracy. The judgment reinforces the importance of a judicial and reasoned approach to bail decisions, ensuring that justice is not compromised.