Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Accused in Murder Case: Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri vs. Subrahmanya & Anr. (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 09, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 776

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and Krishna Murari, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to an accused in a murder case when there are eyewitnesses who have identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in the case of Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri vs. Subrahmanya & Another. The Supreme Court, in this case, addressed the issue of whether the High Court of Karnataka was correct in granting bail to the accused, despite the presence of eyewitnesses and their identification of the accused. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice M.R. Shah and Justice Krishna Murari.

Case Background

The case arises from a criminal case registered at Dharwad Rural Police Station, concerning offences under Sections 120(B), 302, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959. The original complainant, Joseph Johnson N. Maithkuri, appealed against the High Court of Karnataka’s decision to grant bail to the accused, Subrahmanya and Rajesh. The High Court had allowed the criminal petitions of the accused and directed their release on bail. The complainant argued that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offences and the presence of two eyewitnesses who identified the accused.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad Bench had allowed the criminal petitions filed by the accused, Subrahmanya and Rajesh, and directed their release on bail. The High Court, in its order, noted that there were two eyewitnesses to the incident, CW-18 and CW-19. CW-19, who ran a tea shop near the spot, had identified accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) held on 31.10.2019. The High Court, however, raised concerns that the police had taken photographs of the accused on 29.09.2019 and there was a possibility of the police showing these photographs to the witnesses before the TIP. The High Court also noted that there was no specific overt act alleged against accused no. 4. The original complainant, dissatisfied with the High Court’s order, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• ✓ Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with the punishment for criminal conspiracy. It states that 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 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
• ✓ Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. It states that whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.
• ✓ Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states that when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
• ✓ Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section deals with the punishment for using prohibited arms or ammunition.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the appellant and the State are as follows:

• ✓ The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offences while granting bail to the accused.
• ✓ It was submitted that the High Court failed to acknowledge the presence of two eyewitnesses who identified the accused in the Test Identification Parade (TIP).
• ✓ The appellant’s counsel also pointed out that the Supreme Court had previously set aside a similar bail order for a co-accused, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022.
• ✓ The State supported the appellant’s arguments and contended that the High Court’s order was not sustainable.

The arguments presented by the accused (respondents) are not available as none appeared on their behalf despite service.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• ✓ Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, despite the presence of eyewitnesses and their identification of the accused in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the gravity of the offences.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authority:

• ✓ Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022: The Supreme Court had previously set aside a similar order passed by the High Court releasing the co-accused, Umesh Nagappa URF Sangappa, on bail. The grounds for granting bail to the co-accused and the present accused were the same.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022: The Supreme Court relied on its own judgment in this case, where it had cancelled the bail of a co-accused on similar grounds. The Court used this authority to emphasize that the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail was flawed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• ✓ The High Court’s failure to consider the gravity of the offences.
• ✓ The presence of two eyewitnesses who identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
• ✓ The fact that the High Court made observations based on surmises and conjectures, virtually acquitting the accused at the bail stage.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s previous order in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022, which had cancelled the bail of a co-accused on similar grounds.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court is as follows:

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the Test Identification Parade (TIP) might be unreliable due to the possibility of the police showing photographs of the accused to the witnesses beforehand. The Supreme Court emphasized that the accused had been identified in the TIP by eyewitnesses, and the High Court’s observations were based on mere surmises and conjectures.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• ✓ The High Court did not consider the gravity of the offence.
• ✓ The High Court did not give due weight to the fact that the accused were identified by eyewitnesses in a Test Identification Parade (TIP).
• ✓ The High Court’s observations were based on surmises and conjectures.
• ✓ The Supreme Court had previously set aside a similar bail order for a co-accused.

The Supreme Court stated:

“By observing the above, virtually the High Court has acquitted the accused. The observations made by the High Court in para 7 are on surmises and conjectures and the High Court has observed that there might have been the chances of the witnesses showing them the accused before the T.I. Parade.”

“The fact remains that the accused have been identified in a T.I. Parade by CWs. 18 & 19, who are eyewitnesses to the incident.”

“The High Court has not at all considered the gravity of the offence while releasing the respondent No.1­accused on bail.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s decision has implications for future cases involving bail in serious offences. It emphasizes that High Courts must consider the gravity of the offence and the presence of eyewitnesses and identification in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The decision also reinforces the principle that bail cannot be granted based on mere surmises and conjectures.

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must carefully consider the gravity of the offence when deciding on bail applications.
• ✓ The presence of eyewitnesses and their identification of the accused in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) are significant factors that cannot be ignored.
• ✓ Bail orders should not be based on mere surmises and conjectures.
• ✓ The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that bail cannot be granted based on mere surmises and conjectures.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused, Subrahmanya and Rajesh, to surrender before the competent authority/appropriate jail authority within a period of two weeks from the date of the judgment. If the accused failed to surrender within the stipulated time, the concerned police authority was directed to arrest them, and the Trial Court was directed to issue non-bailable warrants against them.

The Supreme Court also directed the Trial Court to decide and dispose of the trial in accordance with law and on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court in the impugned judgments and orders.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court should not grant bail in cases where there are eyewitnesses who have identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade (TIP), and the High Court should not base its decision on mere surmises and conjectures. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the evidence presented by the prosecution when deciding on bail applications. This judgment also clarifies that the High Courts should not virtually acquit the accused at the stage of bail.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders granting bail to the accused, Subrahmanya and Rajesh. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court had not considered the gravity of the offences and the presence of eyewitnesses who identified the accused in a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The Supreme Court also relied on its previous order in Criminal Appeal No. 39/2022, where it had cancelled the bail of a co-accused on similar grounds. The accused were directed to surrender within two weeks, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed with the trial without being influenced by the High Court’s observations.