LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail granted to a convicted person can be cancelled if they are implicated in another serious offense while on bail.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Somesh Chaurasia vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Judgment Date: 22 July 2021
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 22 July 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 408
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, Hrishikesh Roy, J
Can a person, convicted of murder and released on bail pending appeal, continue to enjoy that freedom if they are accused of committing another murder? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case that underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system. This judgment clarifies the circumstances under which bail can be cancelled, especially when a convicted person abuses their liberty. The judgment was authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J, with Hrishikesh Roy, J, concurring.
Case Background
The case revolves around the second respondent, who was convicted of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh suspended his sentence on 3 February 2016, pending his appeal, effectively granting him bail. Subsequently, on 15 March 2019, an FIR was filed against the second respondent for the murder of the appellant’s father. The appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh filed applications to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent. The State cited the second respondent’s criminal history, including two prior murder convictions and another conviction under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 25(1)(1B)(a) of the Arms Act. The High Court declined to revoke the bail, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 3 February 2016 | High Court suspends the sentence of the second respondent under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). |
| 15 March 2019 | FIR No. 143/2019 is registered against the second respondent for the murder of the appellant’s father. |
| 23 July 2019 | High Court declines to cancel the bail of the second respondent. |
| 8 January 2021 | Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) issues summons to the second respondent under Section 319 of the CrPC. |
| 8 February 2021 | ASJ expresses apprehension about being pressured by the police. |
| 12 March 2021 | Supreme Court takes note of the ASJ’s concerns and orders the arrest of the second respondent. |
| 26 March 2021 | Supreme Court finds the DGP’s explanation for the failure to arrest the second respondent unacceptable. |
| 28 March 2021 | Second respondent is arrested. |
| 22 July 2021 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order and cancels the bail of the second respondent. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court declined to cancel the bail of the second respondent, stating that the State was investigating the second respondent’s claim of false implication in the murder of the appellant’s father. The High Court directed the investigation to be completed within three months, and if the second respondent was found to be involved, he should be taken into custody. The High Court’s decision was based on the statement of the Additional Advocate General. The Supreme Court intervened after noting that the second respondent was not arrested despite being implicated in another murder and that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had expressed concerns about being pressured by the police.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily deals with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows an appellate court to suspend a sentence and grant bail to a convicted person pending appeal. The second proviso to Section 389(1) of the CrPC states:
“Provided further that in cases where a convicted person is released on bail it shall be open to the Public Prosecutor to file an application for the cancellation of the bail.”
This provision allows for the cancellation of bail if circumstances warrant it. The Supreme Court also discusses Section 319 of the CrPC, which empowers a court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense. The Court also refers to Article 50 of the Constitution, which mandates the separation of the judiciary from the executive.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- ✓ The second respondent was implicated in a serious offense under Section 302 of the IPC after being released on bail.
- ✓ The second respondent evaded the due process of law despite a warrant and proclamation issued against him.
- ✓ The investigating authorities were complicit in protecting the second respondent, whose spouse is an MLA.
- ✓ The State provided security to the second respondent despite his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.
- ✓ The ASJ’s order indicated that the police were attempting to pressure the trial judge.
State’s Arguments:
- ✓ An FIR was registered against the second respondent on 15 March 2019.
- ✓ A chargesheet was submitted to the court on 13 June 2019, but the second respondent was not named as an accused, pending further investigation.
- ✓ The State did not oppose the application under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning the second respondent.
- ✓ An inquiry was conducted by the ADGP, which found no substance in the allegations of the ASJ against the police.
Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument was innovative in highlighting the abuse of power and the collusion between the police and the accused, which was not directly addressed by the High Court.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission for Bail Cancellation |
|
| State’s Submission Against Bail Cancellation |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issues addressed were:
- Whether the High Court was justified in not cancelling the bail of the second respondent despite his implication in another murder case.
- Whether the High Court’s order had the effect of obstructing a fair investigation.
- Whether the conduct of the second respondent and the police warranted the cancellation of bail.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in not cancelling the bail of the second respondent despite his implication in another murder case. | No | The High Court ignored material considerations and failed to appreciate the gravity of the situation. |
| Whether the High Court’s order had the effect of obstructing a fair investigation. | Yes | The High Court’s order allowed the police to investigate the second respondent’s claim of false implication, thereby impeding a fair investigation into the murder charge. |
| Whether the conduct of the second respondent and the police warranted the cancellation of bail. | Yes | The second respondent’s evasion of arrest, the police’s complicity in shielding him, and the provision of security despite his prior conviction justified the cancellation of bail. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on several cases and legal provisions to arrive at its decision:
| Authority | Court | Relevance | How the authority was used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atul Tripathi vs. State of U.P. [(2014) 9 SCC 177] | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between pre-conviction and post-conviction bail. | The court relied on this case to highlight the stringent requirements for granting bail post-conviction, emphasizing the need for the court to consider various factors before granting bail. |
| Ramji Prasad vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. [(2002) 9 SCC 366] | Supreme Court of India | Suspension of sentence in Section 302 IPC cases. | The court cited this case to emphasize that the suspension of sentence in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be done only in exceptional cases. |
| Masood Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 492] | Supreme Court of India | Grounds for suspension of sentence post-conviction. | This case was used to reiterate that the mere fact that the accused did not misuse their liberty during the trial is not sufficient reason for granting suspension of sentence post-conviction. |
| Vijay Kumar vs Narendra [(2002) 9 SCC 364] | Supreme Court of India | Factors to be considered for bail. | The court relied on this case to highlight the factors that need to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation, manner of crime, and gravity of the offense. |
| Abdul Basit vs. Abdul Kadir Choudhary [(2014) 10 SCC 754] | Supreme Court of India | Grounds for cancellation of bail. | The court referred to this case to list the typical conduct of the accused that would result in the cancellation of bail, such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, and tampering with evidence. |
| Pampapathy vs. State of Mysore [1966 Supp SCR 477] | Supreme Court of India | Power of the High Court to revoke suspension of sentence. | This case was cited to discuss the power of the High Court to revoke the suspension of sentence when the accused misused their liberty. |
| Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh & Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 195] | Supreme Court of India | Misuse of liberty during suspension of sentence. | The court cited this case to emphasize that if the accused misuses their liberty by committing other offenses during the suspension of sentence, they are not entitled to the privilege of being released on bail. |
| Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 463] | Supreme Court of India | Independence of the judiciary. | The court referred to this case to highlight the importance of impartiality, independence, fairness, and reasonableness in decision-making as hallmarks of the judiciary. |
| Section 389(1) of the CrPC | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Suspension of sentence and grant of bail. | The court discussed the provisions of this section, particularly the second proviso that allows for cancellation of bail. |
| Section 319 of the CrPC | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Power to summon additional accused. | The court referred to this section to discuss the power of the court to summon any person as an accused if it appears from the evidence that they have committed an offense. |
| Article 50 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Separation of judiciary from the executive. | The court referred to this article to emphasize the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary from the executive. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the second respondent was implicated in a serious offense under Section 302 of the IPC after being released on bail. | Accepted. The Court noted the gravity of the offense and the fact that it was committed while the second respondent was on bail. |
| Appellant’s submission that the second respondent evaded the due process of law despite a warrant and proclamation issued against him. | Accepted. The Court highlighted the second respondent’s evasion of arrest and the complicity of the police. |
| Appellant’s submission that the investigating authorities were complicit in protecting the second respondent, whose spouse is an MLA. | Accepted. The Court noted the police’s failure to properly investigate the FIR and the provision of security to the second respondent. |
| Appellant’s submission that the State provided security to the second respondent despite his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC. | Accepted. The Court found this to be a serious lapse on the part of the State. |
| Appellant’s submission that the ASJ’s order indicated that the police were attempting to pressure the trial judge. | Accepted. The Court took serious note of the ASJ’s apprehension and the circumstances surrounding it. |
| State’s submission that an FIR was registered against the second respondent on 15 March 2019. | Acknowledged. The Court noted the registration of the FIR but also highlighted the subsequent inaction of the police. |
| State’s submission that a chargesheet was submitted to the court on 13 June 2019, but the second respondent was not named as an accused, pending further investigation. | Acknowledged. The Court noted that the chargesheet did not include the second respondent, but this did not absolve the police of their responsibility to investigate properly. |
| State’s submission that the State did not oppose the application under Section 319 of the CrPC for summoning the second respondent. | Rejected as a feeble attempt to justify the inaction of the police. |
| State’s submission that an inquiry was conducted by the ADGP, which found no substance in the allegations of the ASJ against the police. | The Court did not express any views on the report and directed the High Court to conduct its own inquiry. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court used Atul Tripathi vs. State of U.P. [(2014) 9 SCC 177]* to emphasize the stringent requirements for granting bail post-conviction.
- The Court used Ramji Prasad vs. Rattan Kumar Jaiswal and Anr. [(2002) 9 SCC 366]* to highlight that the suspension of sentence in cases involving conviction under Section 302 of the IPC should be done only in exceptional cases.
- The Court used Masood Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. and Ors. [(2009) 3 SCC 492]* to reiterate that the mere fact that the accused did not misuse their liberty during the trial is not sufficient reason for granting suspension of sentence post-conviction.
- The Court used Vijay Kumar vs Narendra [(2002) 9 SCC 364]* to highlight the factors that need to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the accusation, manner of crime, and gravity of the offense.
- The Court used Abdul Basit vs. Abdul Kadir Choudhary [(2014) 10 SCC 754]* to list the typical conduct of the accused that would result in the cancellation of bail, such as misuse of liberty, interference with investigation, and tampering with evidence.
- The Court used Pampapathy vs. State of Mysore [1966 Supp SCR 477]* to discuss the power of the High Court to revoke the suspension of sentence when the accused misused their liberty.
- The Court used Ramesh Kumar Singh vs. Jhabbar Singh & Ors. [(2003) 10 SCC 195]* to emphasize that if the accused misuses their liberty by committing other offenses during the suspension of sentence, they are not entitled to the privilege of being released on bail.
- The Court used Madras Bar Association v. Union of India & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 463]* to highlight the importance of impartiality, independence, fairness, and reasonableness in decision-making as hallmarks of the judiciary.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in not cancelling the bail of the second respondent. The Court noted that the second respondent was implicated in another murder case while on bail, had evaded arrest, and had been shielded by the police. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order had the effect of obstructing a fair investigation and that the police had been complicit in protecting the second respondent.
The Court stated:
“The High Court has in effect stultified the administration of criminal justice.”
“The material on the record indicates that an effort has been made to shield the accused from the administration of criminal justice.”
“The facts which have been narrated in the earlier part of this judgment indicate that the police have been complicit in shielding the second respondent.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:
- ✓ The second respondent’s criminal history and his implication in another murder while on bail.
- ✓ The failure of the police to properly investigate the case and their complicity in shielding the second respondent.
- ✓ The High Court’s order which had the effect of obstructing a fair investigation.
- ✓ The apprehension expressed by the ASJ about being targeted by politically influential individuals and the police.
- ✓ The need to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system and uphold the rule of law.
The Court was deeply concerned about the abuse of power and the undermining of the judicial process. The Court’s reasoning emphasized the importance of ensuring that those who commit serious offenses do not evade justice, especially when they abuse the liberty granted to them by the courts.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Second respondent’s criminal history and implication in another murder while on bail | 30% |
| Failure of the police to investigate properly and their complicity in shielding the second respondent | 35% |
| High Court’s order obstructing a fair investigation | 20% |
| Apprehension expressed by the ASJ about being targeted | 10% |
| Need to maintain the integrity of the criminal justice system | 5% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Key Takeaways
- ✓ Bail granted to a convicted person can be cancelled if they are implicated in another serious offense while on bail.
- ✓ Courts must ensure that the criminal justice system is not undermined by the actions of the accused or the investigating authorities.
- ✓ The conduct of the accused and the police during the period of bail is a crucial factor in determining whether bail should be cancelled.
- ✓ The independence of the judiciary must be preserved, and judicial officers should not be subjected to undue pressure.
- ✓ The State has a duty to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and that those who commit serious offenses are brought to justice.
This judgment has significant implications for future cases involving bail cancellation, particularly for those convicted of serious offenses. It emphasizes that bail is not an absolute right and can be revoked if the accused abuses their liberty.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- ✓ The order of the High Court dated 23 July 2019 was set aside.
- ✓ The bail granted to the second respondent was cancelled.
- ✓ The second respondent was to be moved to another jail in Madhya Pradesh under the directions of the DGP.
- ✓ The High Court of Madhya Pradesh was to conduct an inquiry on its administrative side into the apprehensions expressed by the ASJ.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There were no specific amendments discussed in the judgment.
Development of Law
Ratio Decidendi: The ratio decidendi of this case is that bail granted to a convicted person can be cancelled if they are implicated in another serious offense while on bail, especially when there is evidence of abuse of liberty, obstruction of justice, or complicity of the police.
This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that bail is not an absolute right and can be revoked in circumstances where the conduct of the accused warrants it. It also emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Somesh Chaurasia vs. State of M.P. is a significant ruling that clarifies the circumstances under which bail can be cancelled, especially when a convicted person is implicated in another serious offense while on bail. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled the bail of the second respondent, and directed an inquiry into the apprehensions expressed by the ASJ. This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system and ensuring that the rule of law is upheld.