Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Convicted Murderer: Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: May 13, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 496

Judges: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J. and Hima Kohli, J.

Can a High Court grant bail to a person convicted of murder without providing sufficient reasoning? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Meena Devi vs. The State of U.P. and Another. The court examined whether the High Court of Allahabad had properly exercised its discretion in granting bail to a convicted murderer, thereby setting aside the High Court order. The judgment was authored by Justice Hima Kohli, with the bench consisting of Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and herself.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Narain Singh, whose wife, Meena Devi, is the appellant. On June 16, 2012, Narain Singh and Meena Devi were attacked while returning home from court, where Narain Singh was a witness in a case against Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Babu (respondent No. 2). The attack resulted in Narain Singh’s death. The dispute between the parties was related to the ownership of a school where Narain Singh was employed as Head Master. Earlier, Narain Singh had been abducted on December 13, 2011, with respondent No. 2 being instrumental in the abduction. A case related to the abduction was pending, where Narain Singh was the prime witness. While in jail, respondent No. 2 allegedly conspired with others to eliminate Narain Singh.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted respondent No. 2 and other co-accused on January 6, 2018, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Consequently, the bail granted to respondent No. 2 was cancelled. Respondent No. 2 appealed to the High Court, and along with the appeal, filed an application for bail. The High Court allowed the bail application on September 19, 2018, without providing detailed reasons. The original complainant, Meena Devi, then appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the order of the High Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily concerns Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the power of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail. The Court also refers to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder, and Sections 149 and 120B of the IPC, which deal with unlawful assembly and criminal conspiracy, respectively.

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. states the powers of the High Court or the Court of Session to grant bail. The Supreme Court emphasizes that while the power to grant bail is wide-ranging, it must be exercised judiciously and not as a matter of course.

Section 302 of the IPC defines murder and prescribes the punishment for it. In this case, the respondent No. 2 was convicted under this section.

Section 149 of the IPC deals with the concept of constructive liability in unlawful assembly. Section 120B of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy and its punishment.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Meena Devi)

• The High Court failed to provide any reasons for granting bail to respondent No. 2.
• Sufficient evidence was presented before the trial court to prove that Narain Singh was murdered as a result of a conspiracy hatched by respondent No. 2.
• Respondent No. 2 is a history-sheeter with a long criminal record.
• The trial court had already found respondent No. 2 guilty under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.
• Respondent No. 2 threatened an eye witness (Hari Singh) not to depose against him.

Respondent’s Arguments (Shivraj Singh alias Lalla Babu)

• The High Court’s order was justified, considering his advanced age and health issues.
• There were no special circumstances to justify the cancellation of bail.
• He cooperated during the trial.
• He has been acquitted in several cases and has a good case on merits in the pending appeal.

State’s Arguments

• The High Court’s order was cryptic and unsustainable.
• The High Court failed to consider the nature of accusations, the gravity of the crime, and the severity of the punishment.
• There was a reasonable apprehension of threat to the appellant and other witnesses.
• Respondent No. 2 is a history-sheeter involved in many criminal cases.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant was to highlight the criminal antecedents of the respondent and the lack of reasoning in the High Court order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court rightly exercised the power conferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for granting bail in favor of the respondent No. 2 in the given facts of the case.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order granting bail to respondent No. 2 was unsustainable due to the lack of reasoning and failure to consider relevant factors. The Court emphasized that while the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is wide, it must be exercised judiciously. The High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offense, the criminal history of the respondent, and the potential threat to witnesses. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, cancelled the bail of respondent No. 2, and directed him to surrender forthwith.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh And Others [(2002) 3 SCC 598]: The Court followed the guiding principles laid down in this case regarding the judicious exercise of discretion while granting bail.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia And Another [(2020) 2 SCC 118]: The Court reiterated the principle that while a detailed analysis of evidence is not required at the stage of bail, the court must examine if there is a prima facie case.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee And Another [(2010) 14 SCC 496]: The Court applied the guidelines set out in this case for assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court while granting bail, particularly regarding the nature and gravity of the accusation.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav and Another [(2004) 7 SCC 528]: The Court emphasized the necessity of providing reasons for granting bail, particularly in serious offenses.
• Narendra K. Amin (Dr.) v. State of Gujarat and Another [(2008) 13 SCC 584]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Dipak Shubhashchandra Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another [(2012) 4 SCC 134]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Abdul Basit alias Raju and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and Another [(2014) 10 SCC 754]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another [(2014) 16 SCC 508]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Another [(2018) 12 SCC 129]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Jagjeet Singh and Others v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu and Another [(2022) SCC online SC 453]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Ms. Y. v. State of Rajasthan and Another [2022 SCC OnLine SC 458]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Ms. P. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another [Criminal Appeal No.740 of 2022]: The court relied on this case for the principles for granting bail.
• Prakash Kadam and Others v. Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta and Another [(2011) 6 SCC 189]: The Court cited this case to highlight that bail can be cancelled even without misuse of bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Imran v. Mohammed Bhava and Another [2022 SCC Online SC 496]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that bail can be revoked if the lower court has ignored relevant material.
• Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu And Another [(2012) 9 SCC 446]: The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of analyzing the criminal antecedents of the accused before granting bail.
• Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338]: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for the court to provide reasons for granting bail.

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 provide any reasons for granting bail.
• The serious nature of the offense (murder) for which the respondent was convicted.
• The respondent’s extensive criminal history, which included numerous serious offenses.
• The potential threat to witnesses, given the respondent’s past behavior.
• The lack of any supervening circumstances that would justify granting bail.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual details of the case.

The court considered and rejected the argument that the respondent’s age and health issues justified bail, emphasizing that these factors did not outweigh the gravity of the offense and his criminal history. The court also noted that the High Court had not analyzed the criminal antecedents of the accused, which was a crucial factor.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Hima Kohli, with Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

“Grant of bail though being a discretionary order – but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course.”

“The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important.”

“Merely recording “having perused the record” and “on the facts and circumstances of the case” does not subserve the purpose of a reasoned judicial order.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide clear and reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious offenses.
• Criminal history of the accused is a critical factor to be considered while granting bail.
• The gravity of the offense and the potential threat to witnesses must be given due weight.
• Supervening circumstances are necessary to justify the cancellation of bail, but bail can be revoked if the relevant material is ignored by the lower court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the bail bonds of the respondent No. 2 be cancelled and that he surrender forthwith. A copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the High Court and the concerned Police Station for perusal and compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court must provide clear and reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in serious offenses, and must consider the criminal history of the accused and the gravity of the offense. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the grant of bail and emphasizes the need for a judicious and reasoned approach by the courts. It does not introduce a new position of law but reiterates the importance of established principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Meena Devi vs. The State of U.P. and Another underscores the importance of reasoned judicial orders, particularly when it comes to granting bail in serious criminal cases. The Court’s emphasis on the need to consider the criminal history of the accused and the gravity of the offense serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their discretion judiciously and not as a matter of course. The cancellation of bail in this case highlights the Court’s commitment to upholding the principles of justice and ensuring that those accused of serious crimes are not granted undue liberty.