Supreme Court Grants Bail After Second Closure Report: Jeetendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 March 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 242
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, B.R. Gavai, J., Surya Kant, J.

Can an accused be kept in jail even after the police have twice stated that no offense has been committed? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question of personal liberty in the case of Jeetendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the High Court was justified in denying bail to the appellant despite the police filing two closure reports stating that no offense was made out against him. The bench comprised Chief Justice S.A. Bobde and Justices B.R. Gavai and Surya Kant.

Case Background

The case revolves around Jeetendra, who was initially arrested in 2008 in a case filed by his wife under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was granted bail, and his mother provided a personal bond of Rs. 7,000 along with property documents. The matrimonial dispute was later resolved, and Jeetendra was acquitted on April 23, 2010.

However, on May 20, 2012, Jeetendra’s cousin, Dileep Borade, and his son, Vishal Borade, filed a complaint alleging that the property documents submitted for Jeetendra’s bail were forged. This led to the registration of Crime No. 210/2012 under Sections 420, 177, 181, 193, 200, and 120B of the IPC. Jeetendra was arrested on January 5, 2019, in connection with this case.

A closure report was initially filed by the police on May 24, 2013, stating that no offense was made out. However, after five years, the Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation on June 20, 2018. Subsequently, the police re-investigated the case and submitted a second closure report on September 2, 2019, again stating that no offense was committed by Jeetendra and that he should be discharged.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

After the first closure report was filed by the police on May 24, 2013, the Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation on June 20, 2018. Jeetendra was subsequently arrested on January 5, 2019, and his bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh also declined to grant him bail on January 22, 2019. A second bail application was withdrawn on April 10, 2019, with liberty to apply again after the examination of certain material witnesses.

Following the second police report on September 2, 2019, stating that no offense had been committed, Jeetendra approached the High Court for the third time. However, the High Court rejected his bail application again, stating that the second closure report had not been accepted by the Trial Court and that Jeetendra had not shown whether material witnesses had been examined.

Legal Framework

The case involves Sections 420 (cheating), 177 (furnishing false information), 181 (false statement on oath), 193 (false evidence), 200 (using as true a declaration knowing it to be false), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The core issue revolves around the interpretation of the principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is an exception”.

Arguments

The appellant argued that he should be granted bail because the police had filed two closure reports stating that no offense was committed by him. The High Court should have considered that the second closure report was filed by the police, and the examination of witnesses would depend on the acceptance of the second closure report.

The respondent argued that the Trial Court had not yet accepted the second closure report, and the appellant had failed to demonstrate whether material witnesses had been examined.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues, but the core issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, where the police had filed two closure reports stating that no offense was committed.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in its judgment. The court relied on the general principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception”.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order dated September 16, 2019. The interim bail order dated November 14, 2019, was made absolute, and the appellant was granted regular bail.

The Court observed that the High Court ought to have kept in view that `Bail is rule and jail is exception’. The Court also noted that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person. The Court held that in the peculiar circumstances of this case where a closure report was filed twice, the High Court ought not to have declined bail only because the trial court was yet to accept the said report.

The Court also considered that the examination of witnesses would depend upon the fate of the second closure report. Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellant and the period he has already spent in custody, the Court was satisfied that he deserves to be released on bail forthwith.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.” The court was also influenced by the fact that the police had filed two closure reports stating that no offense was committed by the appellant. The court also took into consideration the period the appellant had already spent in custody.

Key Takeaways

• Bail should not be denied mechanically, especially when the police have filed closure reports.
• The principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” should be kept in mind.
• The High Court should consider the peculiar circumstances of the case.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released on regular bail subject to the bail bonds already furnished by him to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that when the police have filed two closure reports stating that no offense has been committed, the High Court should not deny bail solely on the ground that the Trial Court has not accepted the second closure report. The Court reiterated the principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception.”

Conclusion

In Jeetendra vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court granted bail to the appellant, emphasizing that bail should not be denied in a mechanical manner, especially when the police have filed two closure reports stating that no offense was committed. The court reiterated the principle that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” and the High Court should consider the peculiar circumstances of each case.