Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Convicted Murder Accused: Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021)

Date of the Judgment: September 7, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 581

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., M.R. Shah, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to individuals convicted of a serious offense like murder while their appeal is pending? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case where the Allahabad High Court had granted bail to individuals convicted of murder. This judgment clarifies the principles that should guide courts when considering bail applications of convicted individuals, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Kripa Shankar Shukla, whose body was discovered in a well on October 28, 1995. Initially, the local police investigation was flawed, suggesting the death was accidental due to drowning. However, the deceased’s wife, Shakuntala Shukla, suspected foul play and petitioned higher authorities for an impartial investigation. This led to a CB-CID investigation, which revealed that the accused, including Swaminath Yadav, were involved in the murder. The trial court convicted the accused for murder, but the High Court granted them bail pending their appeals. Shakuntala Shukla, the widow of the deceased, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s decision to grant bail.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Swaminath Yadav, Vikrama Yadav, Jhingur Bhar, Surendra Kumar Pandey, and Umesh Kumar Pandey under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment. The court also convicted the investigating officer, Jainath Yadav, and the doctor, Vinod Kumar Rai, for their roles in the flawed initial investigation and post-mortem report. The convicted individuals then appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court granted bail to Swaminath Yadav, and subsequently, the other accused were also granted bail on grounds of parity. The complainant, Shakuntala Shukla, then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court’s bail order.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the interpretation and application of Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertains to the suspension of sentence pending appeal. The relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) are:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines the concept of unlawful assembly and vicarious liability.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Defines criminal conspiracy.
• Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to cause injury.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Addresses punishment for criminal intimidation.

The Supreme Court also considered the principles governing the grant of bail, especially after conviction, emphasizing that the presumption of innocence no longer exists once a trial court has found an accused guilty.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Shakuntala Shukla):

• The High Court erred in granting bail without properly considering the trial court’s detailed judgment convicting the accused for serious offenses under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
• The High Court failed to acknowledge that the presumption of innocence ends after conviction by the trial court, and therefore, bail should not be granted lightly.
• The High Court did not consider the efforts made to derail the investigation, including the conviction of the investigating officer and the doctor involved in the post-mortem.
• The High Court ignored the threats given by the accused to prosecution witnesses, which were also the subject of two FIRs under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
• The High Court did not address the counter-affidavit filed by the State opposing bail.

State’s Arguments:

• The State supported the appellant’s arguments, emphasizing that the High Court failed to consider the motive, antecedents, and conduct of the accused.
• The High Court did not provide specific reasons for granting bail and did not discuss the submissions made by the State.
• The High Court took the criminal history of the accused lightly, particularly the cases related to threats to witnesses.

Accused’s Arguments:

• The case was based on circumstantial evidence, and no witness directly saw the accused committing the murder.
• The post-mortem report initially indicated death by drowning.
• The accused had been on bail during the trial and had not misused their liberty.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the accused, who were convicted for offences under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC, pending their appeals against the conviction.

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, it emphasized the general principles governing the grant of bail, particularly after conviction, and the importance of a well-reasoned judgment.

The court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the seriousness of the offense of murder.
• Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the vicarious liability of the accused in an unlawful assembly.
• Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the offense of causing disappearance of evidence.
• Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the offense of criminal conspiracy.
• Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the offense of a public servant framing an incorrect record.
• Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the offense of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): The court considered the offense of criminal intimidation.

Authorities Table

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The court considered the following authorities:

• The court considered the seriousness of the offense of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the vicarious liability of the accused in an unlawful assembly under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the offense of causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the offense of criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the offense of a public servant framing an incorrect record under Section 218 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the offense of intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.
• The court considered the offense of criminal intimidation under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and held that the High Court did not give due weight to this provision.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The trial court’s detailed judgment convicting the accused for serious offenses under Sections 302/149, 201 r/w 120B IPC.
• The fact that the presumption of innocence no longer applies after a conviction by the trial court.
• The efforts made to derail the investigation, including the involvement of the investigating officer and the doctor in the initial flawed investigation.
• The conduct of the accused in threatening the prosecution witnesses, as evidenced by the FIRs filed under Sections 504 and 506 IPC.
• The lack of clarity and reasoning in the High Court’s order, which did not address the submissions of the State and the seriousness of the offenses.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a well-reasoned judgment, highlighting the importance of clarity on facts, submissions, legal points, reasoning, and the ultimate conclusion. The court noted that the High Court’s order lacked these essential elements.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The presumption of innocence ends after conviction by a trial court.
• High Courts must be cautious when granting bail to individuals convicted of serious offenses like murder.
• Courts should consider the gravity of the offense, the antecedents of the accused, and their conduct during the trial.
• Judgments must be clear, well-reasoned, and address all relevant submissions and evidence.
• Threatening witnesses is a serious offense that should be considered when deciding on bail.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender forthwith to serve their sentences. The trial court was also directed to issue warrants of arrest if the accused failed to surrender.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that once an accused is convicted by the trial court, the presumption of innocence ceases, and the High Court should be very slow in granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. This judgment reinforces the principle that bail after conviction is not a matter of course and requires a careful consideration of the seriousness of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the reasoning of the trial court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Shakuntala Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh is a significant reminder of the principles that should guide courts when considering bail applications of convicted individuals. The judgment emphasizes the need for well-reasoned orders that address all relevant factors, particularly in cases involving serious offenses. The Supreme Court’s cancellation of bail in this case underscores that the presumption of innocence ends with a trial court conviction, and bail should not be granted lightly.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories:

• Bail
• Murder
• Conviction
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 149, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 218, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 504, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Section 506, Indian Penal Code, 1860

FAQ

Q: Can a person convicted of murder get bail while their appeal is pending?

A: It is not automatic. The Supreme Court has clarified that after a trial court convicts an individual, the presumption of innocence ends. High Courts should be very cautious when granting bail in such cases and must consider the seriousness of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the reasoning of the trial court.

Q: What factors should a court consider when deciding on bail after conviction?

A: Courts should consider the gravity of the offense, the antecedents of the accused, their conduct during the trial (including any attempts to threaten or influence witnesses), and the reasoning of the trial court’s judgment.

Q: What happens if an accused person threatens witnesses during the trial?

A: Threatening witnesses is a serious matter that can negatively impact the accused’s chances of getting bail. Courts must take such conduct into account while deciding on bail applications.

Q: What is the importance of a well-reasoned judgment?

A: A well-reasoned judgment is crucial as it provides clarity on the facts, submissions, legal points, reasoning, and the ultimate conclusion. It ensures that all parties understand the basis of the court’s decision.