Supreme Court Reinstates Bail After High Court Recall in Atrocities Case: Mendar Singh vs. State of Bihar (2024) INSC 969 (10 December 2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 969

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., and K.V. Viswanathan, J.

Can a High Court revoke a bail order simply because it discovers the accused had a criminal record, even if the accused hasn’t violated any bail conditions? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The court held that a High Court cannot recall its bail order without any evidence of the accused violating the conditions of bail or misusing their freedom. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan.

Case Background

On July 9, 2016, an FIR was filed against Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh (the appellant) for offences under Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant applied for bail before the Sessions Judge, which was rejected on July 5, 2022. Subsequently, the appellant appealed to the High Court.

The High Court initially granted bail to the appellant on December 8, 2022, but later rejected an application for modification of this order on February 15, 2023. The High Court also directed its Registrar General to conduct an inquiry. Based on the inquiry report, the High Court recalled its earlier order granting bail on August 25, 2023, and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The High Court’s decision to recall the bail was primarily based on the appellant’s alleged suppression of his criminal antecedents.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant’s initial bail application was rejected by the Sessions Judge on July 5, 2022. The High Court, on December 8, 2022, granted bail to the appellant. Subsequently, an application for modification of the bail order was rejected by the High Court on February 15, 2023. However, the High Court also directed an inquiry into the matter. Based on the inquiry report, the High Court recalled its earlier order granting bail on August 25, 2023, citing the appellant’s suppression of criminal antecedents as the primary reason.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the IPC: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section specifies the punishment for using arms.
• Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section deals with offenses of atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
• Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989: This section provides for appeals against orders of Special Courts.

These sections form the basis of the charges against the appellant and the legal framework within which the case was decided.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel, Shri Ganesh Khanna, argued that the appellant had no intention of suppressing any material facts from the Court.
• He submitted that the cases cited as criminal antecedents either resulted in the appellant being released on bail or had closure reports filed.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent’s counsel, Shri Anshul Narayan, vehemently opposed the appeal.
• He argued that the High Court had correctly recalled the bail order because the appellant had concealed material facts, which disentitles him to equitable relief.
• The respondent argued that even though a closure report was filed in one case, the Court proceeded to take cognizance.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court was justified in recalling its order granting bail based on the suppression of criminal antecedents, when there was no allegation that the appellant had violated the conditions of bail or misused his liberty.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following:

• The orders passed by the High Court on December 8, 2022, February 15, 2023, and August 25, 2023.
• The material placed on record, specifically the appellant’s criminal antecedents.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that since there was no allegation that the appellant had violated any of the conditions imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was incorrect on the part of the High Court to recall its earlier order granting bail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that there was no allegation of the appellant violating the conditions of bail or misusing his liberty. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s decision to recall the bail order was not justified in the absence of any such violation. The court also considered the fact that the High Court had initially granted bail after considering the material available.

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that once bail is granted, it should not be recalled unless there is a clear violation of the conditions or misuse of liberty. The court’s decision reflects a concern for the liberty of the individual and the need for a fair and just legal process.

The Supreme Court did not consider any alternative interpretations in the judgment. The court’s decision was based on the specific facts of the case and the established legal principles regarding the grant and recall of bail.

The Court’s decision was clear and unambiguous: the High Court’s recall of the bail order was not justified. The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 15th February 2023 and 25th August 2023 and restored the order dated 8th December 2022 granting bail.

The reasons for the decision include:

• There was no allegation that the appellant had violated any of the conditions imposed while granting bail.
• There was no allegation that the appellant was misusing the liberty granted to him.
• The High Court had initially granted bail after considering the material.

The Supreme Court quoted, “We find that since there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the appellant has violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct on the part of the learned Single Judge to recall its earlier order granting bail.”

The Supreme Court further stated, “In that view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the orders dated 15th February 2023 and 25th August 2023 and restore the order dated 8th December 2022 granting bail.”

The Supreme Court also observed, “We do not wish to observe anything about the merits or demerits of certain material as it may adversely affect the trial.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this judgment. The decision was unanimous.

The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the principle that bail, once granted, should not be recalled unless there is a clear violation of the conditions or misuse of liberty. The decision also highlights the importance of a fair and just legal process.

The implications for future cases are that High Courts should be cautious in recalling bail orders and should only do so when there is clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty. The judgment also underscores the need for a balanced approach between the interests of justice and the liberty of the individual.

The judgment does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. It reaffirms the existing principles regarding the grant and recall of bail.

Key Takeaways

• A High Court cannot recall a bail order simply because it discovers the accused had a criminal record if there is no violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty.
• Bail, once granted, should not be recalled unless there is a clear violation of the conditions or misuse of liberty.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of a fair and just legal process.
• High Courts should be cautious in recalling bail orders and should only do so when there is clear evidence of violation of conditions or misuse of liberty.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders dated 15th February 2023 and 25th August 2023 and restored the order dated 8th December 2022 granting bail.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot recall a bail order without any allegation of violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty by the accused. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that bail, once granted, should not be recalled unless there is a clear violation of the conditions or misuse of liberty. There is no change in the previous position of the law, but the judgment clarifies the application of the existing principles.

Conclusion

In the case of Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in recalling its order granting bail to the appellant, as there was no allegation of violation of bail conditions or misuse of liberty. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and restored the initial bail order, emphasizing the importance of a fair and just legal process and the need to protect the liberty of the individual.