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: (2022) INSC 48
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case simply because the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, setting aside a High Court order that had granted bail to an accused charged with conspiring to murder his wife. This judgment underscores the importance of considering the gravity of the offense and the evidence collected during the investigation when deciding bail applications. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, with the opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

On December 26, 2020, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Daxaben, the wife of respondent no. 2 (Ishwarji Nagaji Mali), was fatally struck by a speeding four-wheeler while walking with her husband near Gela village. Initially, the incident was reported as an accident, with a First Information Report (FIR) filed against unknown persons for offences under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 177, 184, and 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The FIR was lodged by Sevantibhai Ranchhodji Tank, a cousin of the respondent no. 2, based on the account given by the respondent no. 2 himself.

However, during the course of the investigation, analysis of call details between respondent no. 2 and his friend Kirtikumar Kanaji, along with statements from witnesses, revealed a criminal conspiracy. It was discovered that respondent no. 2 had allegedly paid Rs. 2 lakhs to the driver of the Swift car to intentionally hit his wife from behind, making it appear as an accident. Consequently, the Investigating Officer added charges under Sections 302 (murder), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and 114 (abettor present when the offense is committed) of the IPC. The Magistrate permitted the addition of these charges on February 6, 2021.

Following a thorough investigation involving the statements of 40 witnesses and analysis of call records, respondent no. 2 and other co-accused were charged under Sections 302, 120(B), and 114 of the IPC.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Respondent no. 2’s initial bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deodar, on May 19, 2021. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 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, through its order dated July 30, 2021, allowed the application and granted bail to respondent no. 2. The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the grounds that the prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence and that the accused had deep roots in society with no apprehension of fleeing or tampering with evidence.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states, “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 Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section addresses the abettor present when the offense is committed. It states, “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 Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with causing death by negligence. It states, “Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to grant bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Father of the deceased):

• The High Court erred in granting bail without considering the material collected during the investigation and the seriousness of the offense.
• The High Court did not provide adequate reasons for granting bail, merely stating that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, which is a weak piece of evidence.
• The High Court’s order is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court 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, decided on 29.10.2021) and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118].
• The investigation revealed that respondent no. 2 was in financial difficulty and had taken an insurance policy in the joint names of himself and his wife for Rs. 60 lakhs shortly before the incident.
• Call details and witness statements established a criminal conspiracy between respondent no. 2 and other co-accused to murder his wife for monetary benefits.
• The call records show that respondent no. 2 was in constant contact with the co-accused in the hours leading up to the murder.

Respondent’s Arguments (Accused):

• The investigation has been completed, and a charge sheet has been filed, so custodial interrogation is no longer required.
• The prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant argued that the High Court did not consider the material evidence and the seriousness of the offense, which was a novel argument in the context of bail applications.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to respondent no. 2, considering the nature and gravity of the offense, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order granting bail was unsustainable both on law and facts. The High Court had failed to consider the relevant material evidence collected during the investigation, which was part of the charge sheet. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offense and the criminal conspiracy hatched by respondent no. 2 to kill his wife for monetary benefits.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(1978) 1 SCC 240]* to highlight the key factors for granting bail, emphasizing the nature of the charge and the evidence.
• The Court used Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS [(2001) 4 SCC 280]* to emphasize the need to consider the nature of accusations and severity of punishment while deciding on bail.
• The Supreme Court referred to Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]* to underscore that bail should not be granted as a matter of course without cogent reasoning.
• The Court cited Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528]* to reiterate that a court must provide prima facie reasons for granting bail.
• The Supreme Court used Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496]* to highlight that a High Court order granting bail mechanically suffers from non-application of mind.
• The Court relied on Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. [(2016) 15 SCC 422]* to stress the importance of considering the criminal antecedents of the accused.
• The Supreme Court referred to Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018) 12 SCC 129]* to outline the relevant considerations for granting bail, including the nature of the offense and the likelihood of the accused tampering with witnesses.
• The Court cited Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others [(2021) 6 SCC 630]* to emphasize the duty of the court to apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for deciding whether to grant bail.
• The Supreme Court cited Bhoopendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021)* and Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar [(2020) 2 SCC 118]* as precedents for the principles governing bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the seriousness of the offense, the evidence collected during the investigation, and the need to uphold the principles of justice. The court emphasized that the High Court had not adequately considered the material evidence and the gravity of the offense, which involved a criminal conspiracy to commit murder for monetary benefits. The court also noted that the High Court’s reasoning that circumstantial evidence was a weak piece of evidence was insufficient to justify granting bail.

The court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, including the evidence of conspiracy and the seriousness of the crime, than by legal considerations.

The Supreme Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence and the legal principles but rejected them, emphasizing the need to adhere to established precedents and to ensure that bail is not granted in serious offenses without proper consideration of the evidence and the gravity of the crime.

The final decision was that the High Court’s order was unsustainable, and the bail was canceled, with the accused directed to surrender.

The court’s reasoning included:

• The High Court did not consider the material evidence collected during the investigation.
• The High Court did not consider the seriousness of the offense (murder and conspiracy).
• The High Court’s reasoning that circumstantial evidence is a weak piece of evidence was insufficient.
• The High Court did not apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for its decision.

The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment:

“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.”

“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 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.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The judgment was unanimous.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must consider the seriousness of the offense, the evidence collected, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court when deciding bail applications.
• The mere fact that a case rests on circumstantial evidence is not a sufficient ground to grant bail in serious offenses.
• Courts must apply a judicial mind and record brief reasons for their decisions on bail applications.
• The liberty of an accused must be balanced with the public interest and the rights of victims.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that bail is not a matter of course, particularly in heinous crimes.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases involving serious offenses such as murder and criminal conspiracy, the High Court must not grant bail without adequately considering the seriousness of the offense, the material evidence collected during the investigation, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court. This judgment reinforces the existing principles governing bail and does not introduce any new legal doctrines but clarifies the application of existing ones.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ishwarji Nagaji Mali vs. State of Gujarat sets aside the High Court’s order granting bail to an accused charged with murder and criminal conspiracy. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough and judicious approach when considering bail applications, especially in serious offenses. It emphasizes that the courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the evidence collected, and the precedents set by the Supreme Court, rather than relying solely on the argument that the prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence.