Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Accused in Double Murder Case Due to Subsequent Offence: Jadunath Singh vs. Arvind Kumar (2024)

Date of the Judgment: 19 April 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 325

Judges: Vikram Nath J., Sanjay Kumar J.

Can an accused, who has been granted bail, have that bail cancelled if they commit another serious crime while on trial? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case involving a double murder and the subsequent killing of a police constable. The court examined whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to the accused, considering their subsequent criminal conduct. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a tragic incident that occurred on 11th February 2011. Jadunath Singh, the complainant, reported that Arvind Kumar had illegally occupied a plot of land. Following a District Magistrate’s order, Rajvir, Jadunath Singh’s son, had the illegal possession removed. Later that day, while Jadunath Singh and his associates were discussing the land dispute, Arvind Kumar, along with his sons Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, and others, attacked them. The assailants, armed with firearms, opened fire, leading to the deaths of Rajvir and Pawan Kumar, and injuring Ravita, a relative of Harvilas, where they were hiding. The injured were taken to the hospital, where Rajvir and Pawan Kumar were declared dead.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted five accused, including Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, and Rishi Kumar, under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, two other accused, Monu and Amit Kumar, were acquitted. The convicted individuals then filed criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court seeking suspension of their sentences and bail, primarily on the ground that they had been in jail for over ten years. The High Court granted bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, and Rishi Kumar, which was challenged by the complainant in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

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

• Section 147, IPC: “Punishment for rioting”
• Section 148, IPC: “Rioting, armed with deadly weapon”
• Section 302, IPC: “Punishment for murder”
• Section 149, IPC: “Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object”
• Section 120B, IPC: “Punishment of criminal conspiracy”

These sections deal with rioting, murder, and criminal conspiracy, which are the primary charges against the accused. The court also considered the implications of granting bail to individuals accused of such serious offenses, especially when they have demonstrated a propensity for further criminal activity.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Complainant’s) Arguments:

• The complainant argued that the accused are hardened criminals who committed a double murder and subsequently killed a police constable while in custody.
• The complainant expressed fear that upon release, the accused would conspire to harm him and his family.
• The complainant contended that the High Court failed to consider the subsequent criminal conduct of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, specifically the murder of the police constable.
• The complainant argued that the parity granted by the High Court with respect to other co-accused was not applicable to Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, as they were involved in the murder of the police constable.

Respondents’ (Accused’s) Arguments:

• The accused argued that they had been in jail for more than ten years.
• The accused argued that other co-accused had been granted bail by a coordinate bench of the same High Court.

[TABLE] showing the sub-submissions categorized by main submissions of all sides pertaining to the issue:

Innovativeness of the argument: The complainant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the subsequent criminal conduct of the accused while in custody as a ground for cancellation of bail, which was not adequately considered by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, considering their subsequent criminal conduct, specifically the murder of a police constable while in custody?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: These sections were the basis of the charges against the accused.

[TABLE] of which authority were considered by the court and HOW:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court considered Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860* to understand the severity of the offences and the charges against the accused.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the subsequent criminal conduct of the accused, particularly Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, who murdered a police constable while in custody. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered this fact when granting bail. The Court also noted that the parity with other co-accused was not applicable to these two individuals due to their involvement in the subsequent murder. The Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that those accused of serious crimes do not continue to engage in criminal activities while on bail. The Court also considered the fear of the complainant and his family as a relevant factor.

[TABLE] ranked based on percentage to show the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court as to what weighed in the mind of the court to come to the conclusion with the various points emphasised in the reasoning portion:

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s decision was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case, particularly the subsequent criminal conduct of the accused, than the legal aspects.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the High Court’s failure to account for the subsequent murder by Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar and determined that this was a sufficient basis to cancel their bail. The Court distinguished their case from that of Arvind Kumar, who was not involved in the subsequent murder.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the period of incarceration and the parity with other co-accused were sufficient grounds for granting bail, given the subsequent criminal conduct of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar. The Court also considered the fear of the complainant and his family as a relevant factor. The decision was reached based on the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and ensure that those accused of serious crimes do not continue to engage in criminal activities while on bail.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Vikram Nath, with Justice Sanjay Kumar concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

“In our considered opinion, two accused respondents namely Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar despite their period of incarceration of more than 10 years would not be entitled to grant of bail for their subsequent conduct for which they are facing separate trial.”

“The parity mentioned by the High Court in the impugned order relating to Adesh Kumar and Pramod Kashyap was clearly distinguishable not only with respect to their role in the case in hand but also, they were not involved in the murder of Ajay Kumar Police Constable.”

“It appears that before the High Court, the fact relating to the murder of Ajay Kumar Police Constable in whose custody the accused Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were produced before the Trial Court at Mainpuri and further, the fact that they had absconded after throwing the dead body of deceased Constable Ajay Kumar and later on arrested by Special Task Force (STF) from Maharashtra and during their arrest also they had resisted and opened fire on the police party for which a separate case was registered. Such facts have not been placed before the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Bail can be cancelled if the accused engages in further criminal conduct while on trial.
• High Courts must consider subsequent criminal conduct when deciding on bail applications.
• Parity with co-accused may not apply if there are distinguishing factors, such as subsequent criminal involvement.
• The integrity of the judicial process and public safety are paramount considerations in bail decisions.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar to surrender within two weeks. If they fail to do so, the High Court was directed to take appropriate steps to take them into custody using coercive measures.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that subsequent criminal conduct of an accused while on bail is a valid ground for cancellation of bail. This judgment reinforces the principle that the grant of bail is not an absolute right and can be revoked if the accused abuses the liberty granted to them by engaging in further criminal activities. This case clarifies that parity with co-accused is not applicable if there are distinguishing factors such as subsequent criminal involvement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Jadunath Singh vs. Arvind Kumar & Anr. highlights the importance of considering the subsequent conduct of an accused when deciding on bail matters. The Court cancelled the bail of Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar due to their involvement in the murder of a police constable while on trial, emphasizing that bail is not an absolute right and can be revoked if the accused engages in further criminal activities. The decision reinforces the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process and ensure public safety.