Supreme Court sets aside bail in communal murder case: Mubin Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 08 February 2018

Citation: (2018) INSC 123

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.

The Supreme Court of India addressed a critical question regarding the justification of bail in a murder case where the victim was targeted due to their religious identity. The case involved the killing of Shaikh Mohsin, who was assaulted by a group allegedly motivated by communal hatred. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the accused was appropriate, given the circumstances and the reasoning provided by the High Court. The bench comprised Justices S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao.

Case Background

On June 2, 2014, at approximately 9:00 PM, Shaikh Mohsin was on his way to dinner with a friend, Riyaz. Shaikh Mohsin was wearing a pastel green shirt and had a beard. The prosecution stated that the accused, motivated by communal hatred, attacked Shaikh Mohsin with hockey sticks, bats, and stones, resulting in his death. The accused were allegedly motivated by their attendance at a meeting of the Hindu Rashtra Sena about half an hour before the incident.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The accused initially applied for bail before the Sessions Court, Pune, which rejected their applications. The Sessions Court noted that 23 individuals, including two juveniles, were involved in the assault. The court also observed that the deceased was targeted because he appeared to be Muslim and had no connection to any act of disgracing Shivaji Maharaj. The Sessions Court found that the accused were present at a meeting where a conspiracy to harm members of a specific community was allegedly planned. Subsequently, the accused appealed to the Bombay High Court, which granted them bail. The High Court’s decision was primarily based on the fact that the accused had no personal animosity towards the deceased and were allegedly provoked in the name of religion.

Legal Framework

The judgment does not specifically cite any particular section of a statute. However, it revolves around the general principles of criminal law, particularly those related to bail and the considerations that courts must take into account when deciding on bail applications. The core legal principle discussed is that belonging to a particular community cannot be a justification for assault or murder, and that courts must be mindful of the plural composition of the country while dealing with the rights of various communities.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were primarily focused on the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail. The High Court had stated that the accused had no personal enmity with the victim and that the victim’s only fault was that he belonged to another religion, which was considered a factor in favor of the accused. The Supreme Court found this reasoning problematic, as it seemed to suggest that the victim’s religious identity could be a mitigating circumstance for the crime. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a perspective could be seen as biased and could not be sustained.

The arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Accused’s Argument (Implicit): The accused argued that they had no personal motive against the deceased and were provoked in the name of religion, thus warranting bail.
• State’s Argument (Implicit): The State argued against the grant of bail, contending that the crime was serious and motivated by communal hatred, and the High Court’s reasoning was flawed.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed was:

• Whether the High Court’s reasoning for granting bail, particularly the observation that the victim’s religious identity was a factor in favor of the accused, was legally sound and justifiable.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in its judgment. The focus was on the general principles of criminal law and the importance of impartiality and fairness in the judicial process.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s observation that the victim’s religious identity was a factor in favor of the accused was unacceptable. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to reconsider the bail applications, allowing the parties to file additional affidavits. The Court also specified that the bail applications should be decided within six weeks from the date the parties appear before the High Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the High Court’s flawed reasoning, which seemed to justify the murder based on the victim’s religious identity. The Court emphasized the importance of impartiality and fairness in the judicial process, particularly in cases involving communal tensions. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure that the justice system does not appear biased or prejudiced towards any particular community. The Court also focused on the seriousness of the crime and the need for a thorough consideration of all relevant factors before granting bail in such cases.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the following points:

• The High Court’s observation that “the fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion” was deemed unacceptable.
• The High Court’s consideration of the victim’s religious identity as a factor in favor of the accused was found to be biased.
• The Court emphasized that such observations could be misinterpreted as a justification for the murder.
• The Court stressed the importance of impartiality and fairness in the judicial process, especially in cases with communal undertones.

The Court stated, “We find that the aforesaid reason can, on a fair reading, be understood or misunderstood almost as a mitigating circumstance or a kind of a justification for the murder and it is obvious that the fact that the deceased belonged to a certain community cannot be a justification for any assault much less a murder.”

The Court further noted, “While it may be possible to understand a reference to the community of the parties involved in an assault, it is difficult to understand why it was said that ‘the fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion’ and further ‘I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/accused.'”

The Court concluded, “We have no doubt that a Court fully conscious of the plural composition of the Country while called upon to deal with rights of various communities, cannot make such observations which may appear to be coloured with a bias for or against a community.”

Key Takeaways

• The religious identity of a victim cannot be a mitigating factor or a justification for a crime.
• Courts must be impartial and unbiased in their judgments, especially in cases involving communal tensions.
• Bail should not be granted based on flawed reasoning that appears to condone or justify a crime based on the victim’s religious identity.
• The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The accused Ganesh @ Ranjeet Shankar Yadav is to remain in custody.
• The respondents/accused Ajay Dilip Lalge and Vijay Rajendra Gambhire shall be taken into custody if they do not surrender within one week.
• The bail applications are restored to the file of the High Court.
• The High Court shall hear the matter afresh after giving liberty to the parties to file additional affidavits.
• The parties are directed to appear before the High Court on 16.02.2018.
• The bail applications should be decided at the earliest, not later than 6 weeks from the date the parties appear before the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the religious identity of a victim cannot be used as a mitigating factor or a justification for a crime. This case reinforces the principle that courts must be impartial and unbiased, especially in cases involving communal tensions. The judgment does not introduce a new legal principle but rather reaffirms existing principles of justice and fairness.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mubin Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra is a significant reminder of the judiciary’s role in upholding impartiality and fairness. By setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court emphasized that the religious identity of a victim cannot be used as a mitigating factor in a crime. The judgment underscores the importance of a fair and unbiased judicial process, especially in cases with communal undertones. The case serves as a crucial precedent for future bail applications in similar situations.