Supreme Court Overturns High Court Bail Order in Heinous Murder Case: State of Kerala vs. Mahesh (2021) INSC 148 (19 March 2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 March 2021
Citation: (2021) INSC 148
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and Krishna Murari, J.
Can a High Court grant bail in a heinous murder case, ignoring the detailed reasoning of the Sessions Court that had denied bail? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal filed by the State of Kerala against an order of the High Court granting bail to an accused charged with the gruesome murder of a young doctor. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Krishna Murari, overturned the High Court’s decision, emphasizing the need for a judicious exercise of discretion in bail matters, especially in cases involving serious offenses. Justice Indira Banerjee authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of a lady doctor in Kerala. The victim and the accused, Mahesh, had a prior relationship. They lived together from 2018, during which the victim became pregnant. The accused allegedly forced her to undergo an abortion by threatening her.

The victim, with financial support from her father, started a multispeciality dental clinic. The accused allegedly misappropriated funds from the clinic and harassed the victim, both physically and mentally. This led to their separation, with the victim moving back to her own house. The accused continued to threaten her, prompting her and her father to file a complaint with the City Police Commissioner, Thrissur, on 26th September 2020.

On 28th September 2020, the victim was called to the Ollur Police Station for a settlement. Subsequently, at around 3:30 p.m., the accused stabbed the victim with a knife inside her dental clinic in the presence of her father. The victim sustained serious injuries and died on 4th October 2020 at Jubilee Mission Hospital.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court dismissed the accused’s bail application on 9th December 2020, citing the seriousness of the crime, the accused’s absconding behavior, and the possibility of witness tampering. The Sessions Court noted that the accused had reached the clinic with a knife, attacked the deceased and caused damages to her internal vital organs. The court also took note of the fact that after committing the crime, the petitioner had absconded and he could be apprehended only on 06.10.2020 on receiving secret information by the investigation agency regarding the arrival of the petitioner at Poonkunnam. The Sessions Court also noted that there was a possibility of the petitioner absconding from appearing before court and also that there was a likelihood of the petitioner causing influence on the prosecution witnesses.

Subsequently, on 14th December 2020, the accused filed a bail application in the High Court of Kerala under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court, on 21st December 2020, granted bail, noting that the accused was in custody since 6th October 2020 and that indefinite incarceration was not necessary. The High Court imposed a condition that the accused not enter the jurisdictional limits of Ollur Police Station until the investigation was complete.

The State of Kerala appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had overlooked the gravity of the offense and the reasons given by the Sessions Court for denying bail. The victim’s father also filed an intervention application supporting the appeal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for wrongful restraint.
• Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
• Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.

The Supreme Court also considered the general principles governing the grant of bail, emphasizing that while bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offenses.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Kerala) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in granting bail despite the gravity of the offense and the fact that the accused had committed a gruesome murder in the presence of an eyewitness (the victim’s father).
• The High Court failed to consider the detailed reasons given by the Sessions Court for rejecting bail.
• The High Court’s condition of restraining the accused from entering the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station was insufficient to prevent witness tampering, as the victim and many witnesses resided outside that jurisdiction.
• The High Court incorrectly relied on the fact that other accused persons had not been arrested, as those individuals were charged with a less serious offense (harboring the accused) under Section 212 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The High Court misapplied the directions of the Supreme Court regarding the release of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic, as those directions did not apply to individuals accused of serious offenses like murder.

Respondent (Accused) Arguments:

• The High Court’s order was well-reasoned, considering that the accused had been in custody since 6th October 2020 and that indefinite incarceration was not necessary.
• The bail was granted on stringent conditions, including the restriction on entering the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station.
• Bail once granted should not be canceled in a mechanical manner without considering whether there were supervening circumstances.
• The accused admitted the incident but stated that it was a scuffle and that he had no intention to commit any offense.
• The seriousness of the charge is not the only test for considering bail applications.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the Respondent Accused, overlooking the materials on record which prima facie indicate that the Respondent had committed cold blooded murder of a young lady doctor, as a fall out of a soured relationship.

Additionally, the Court also considered the following sub-issues:

• Whether the High Court had correctly applied the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
• Whether the High Court had correctly appreciated the directions of the Supreme Court regarding the release of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Ors. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court used this case to emphasize the need for judicious discretion in granting bail, particularly in heinous crimes.
• Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court relied on this case to highlight the principles for assessing bail orders, including the gravity of the offense and the risk of witness tampering.
• Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar and Anr. [CITATION]: This case was used to reiterate the need for due application of mind in granting bail and the importance of balancing individual liberty with public interest.
• Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation [CITATION]: While the Respondent cited this case to argue that the seriousness of the charge is not the only test, the Supreme Court clarified that it is one of the relevant considerations.
• Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetra v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court used this case to emphasize the need to balance individual liberty with societal interest.
• Jagdish and Ors. v. Harendrajit Singh [CITATION]: The Supreme Court acknowledged that it does not ordinarily interfere with bail orders, but clarified that this practice is not absolute.
• P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement [CITATION]: The Supreme Court distinguished this case, noting that while bail is the rule, the gravity of the offense is an important consideration. The Court also noted the specific facts of the case in which bail was granted in P. Chidambaram were different from the present case.
• Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana [CITATION]: The Supreme Court used this case to differentiate between the initial rejection of bail and the cancellation of bail already granted.
• Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court used this case to highlight the difference between an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse and an order for cancellation of bail.
• Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P. and Anr. [CITATION]: The Supreme Court used this case to discuss the scope of appellate interference in setting aside an order granting bail.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was flawed because it did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offense, the detailed reasoning of the Sessions Court, and the potential for witness tampering. The High Court had granted bail primarily based on the period of custody, without properly evaluating the prima facie evidence against the accused.

The Supreme Court emphasized that while bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The Court also clarified that the directions issued regarding the release of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic were not meant to apply to individuals accused of serious offenses like murder.

The Supreme Court, therefore, allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and directed the accused to be taken into custody.

“The High Court, in our opinion, clearly erred in not appreciating that the apprehension of the Prosecution that the Respondent Accused would influence witnesses, could not be put to rest, by directing the Respondent Accused not to enter the jurisdiction of Ollur Police Station.”

“The High Court completely ignored the fact that the deceased victim used to reside at Ernakulam. Her parents and her five years old daughter reside at Ernakulam. In other words, the only eye witness is a resident of Ernakulam.”

“This Court did not direct release of all under-trial prisoners, irrespective of the severity of the offence.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors, primarily focusing on the gravity of the offense and the procedural lapses by the High Court. The Court was particularly concerned about the potential for witness tampering and the fact that the accused had absconded after the crime. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to adequately consider the detailed reasoning of the Sessions Court and had misapplied the COVID-19 guidelines. The sentiment analysis reveals a strong emphasis on the need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of bail applications, especially in serious criminal cases.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must exercise discretion judiciously when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses.
• The gravity of the offense, the reasons given by lower courts, and the potential for witness tampering are critical factors to consider in bail applications.
• Orders granting bail should not be based solely on the period of custody but must consider all relevant factors.
• Directions issued by the Supreme Court regarding the release of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic do not apply to individuals accused of serious offenses like murder.
• Appellate courts can and should interfere with bail orders that are not based on a proper application of mind or a prima facie view of the evidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that:

• The impugned order of the High Court granting bail to the Respondent Accused is set aside.
• The Respondent Accused shall be taken into custody.
• A copy of the order shall be sent to the concerned Police Station as well as the Jurisdictional Chief Judicial Magistrate for compliance.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while bail is the rule and jail is the exception, the discretion to grant bail must be exercised judiciously, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The judgment clarifies that High Courts must consider the gravity of the offense, the reasons given by lower courts, the potential for witness tampering, and the prima facie evidence against the accused. The judgment also reinforces that the Supreme Court’s directions regarding the release of prisoners during the COVID-19 pandemic do not apply to individuals accused of serious offenses like murder. This case reaffirms the principles governing the grant of bail and emphasizes the need for a thorough and judicious evaluation of bail applications, particularly in serious criminal cases.