Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail in Murder Case: Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 11 January 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 36

Judges: M.R. Shah J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.

Can a High Court grant bail in a murder case without providing sufficient reasoning? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in an appeal against a High Court order that granted bail to an accused in a murder case. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing the need for reasoned decisions when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with Justice Nagarathna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Ram Swaroop Khokhar, who was allegedly strangled to death by the accused, Ram Narayan Jat. The informant, Manoj Kumar Khokhar, is the son of the deceased. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by Manoj Kumar, the incident occurred on December 8, 2019, at the Lalpura Pachar bus stand. The FIR stated that the accused pinned the deceased to the ground, sat on his chest, and strangled him, leading to his death. The informant also mentioned a pre-existing rivalry between the accused and the deceased’s family. The post-mortem report confirmed that the death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The accused, Ram Narayan Jat, was arrested on December 10, 2019, and remained in judicial custody for about one year and five months. The Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Jaipur, took cognizance of the offense on March 12, 2020, and committed the case to the District and Sessions Court for trial. The accused had previously filed multiple bail applications, all of which were rejected by the lower courts. The High Court, however, granted bail on May 7, 2020, which led to the informant appealing to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision involved in this case is Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder. The case also involves the interpretation of Section 437 and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which pertain to the grant of bail. Section 437 deals with when bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence and Section 439 deals with the special powers of High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail. The Supreme Court’s analysis focuses on whether the High Court properly exercised its discretion under these provisions while granting bail.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the High Court did not consider the gravity of the offense and the manner in which it was committed.
• The deceased was physically impaired, making him vulnerable to the attack.
• There was a pre-existing political rivalry between the deceased and the accused. The deceased had won the election for Deputy Sarpanch in 2015 against the wishes of the accused and his family, and the accused was trying to prevent the deceased from contesting the upcoming Sarpanch election in February 2020.
• The accused is politically influential and could potentially influence witnesses or abscond if released on bail.
• The police were initially reluctant to register the FIR, and the accused was arrested only after protests by the deceased’s family.
• The High Court’s order was cryptic and lacked reasoning.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the informant had presented a false version of events.
• There was no pre-existing enmity between the families, and they maintained cordial relations. The deceased and the accused used to play cards together daily.
• The incident was a sudden scuffle and not a pre-planned attack.
• There was a delay in lodging the FIR, indicating that it was an afterthought.
• The investigation is complete, and a charge sheet has been submitted, so there is no chance of tampering with evidence.
• The accused has deep roots in society and no criminal antecedents.
• The incident was a result of a sudden scuffle, and therefore, a prima facie case under Section 300 of the IPC was not made out.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue was whether the High Court’s order granting bail to the accused was justified, given the serious nature of the offense and the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court cited several cases to support its decision, emphasizing the principles that should guide the grant of bail.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, stating that it was a cryptic and casual order that lacked reasoning. The Court emphasized that while elaborate reasons may not be necessary, a court must consider the gravity of the offense, the manner in which it was committed, the vulnerability of the victim, the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses, and the prima facie evidence against the accused.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Gudikanti Narasimhulu & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [1978] 1 SCC 240* to emphasize the key factors to be considered while granting bail, such as the nature of the charge, evidence, potential punishment and the likelihood of the accused interfering with justice.
• The Supreme Court relied on Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & ORS [2001] 4 SCC 280* to highlight the aspects to consider, including the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of punishment, character of the accused, and the possibility of tampering with witnesses.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh [2002] 3 SCC 598* to emphasize that bail should not be granted as a matter of course and must be based on cogent reasoning.
• The Supreme Court relied on Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [2004] 7 SCC 528* to state that while a detailed examination of evidence isn’t required, the court must indicate prima facie reasons for granting bail.
• The Supreme Court relied on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chaterjee [2010] 14 SCC 496* to observe that a mechanical grant of bail is illegal and detailed the circumstances under which a bail order may be set aside.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ash Mohammad vs. Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr. [2012] 9 SCC 446* to note that the period of custody must be weighed with the totality of circumstances and the criminal antecedents of the accused.
• The Supreme Court relied on Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. [2016] 15 SCC 422* to stress that the High Court should not ignore the criminal antecedents of the accused and emphasized the need for judicious discretion.
• The Supreme Court relied on Anil Kumar Yadav vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2018] 12 SCC 129* to spell out significant considerations for granting bail, such as the nature of the offense, evidence, and the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ramesh Bhavan Rathod vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and Ors. [2021] 6 SCC 230* to emphasize the need for assigning reasons for the grant of bail and stated that a court cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind.
• The Supreme Court relied on Bhoopendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021)* to distinguish between setting aside a perverse order granting bail and cancelling bail due to misconduct or new facts.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of Myakala Dharmarajam and Ors. vs. The State of Telangana and Ors. [2020] 2 SCC 743* stating that in the present case, there was no indication that the High Court had perused the material on record.
• The Supreme Court relied on Brijmani Devi vs. Pappu Kumar and Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 1663/2021)* to state that while liberty is important, courts cannot ignore serious accusations and must support prima facie conclusions with reasons.
• The Supreme Court relied on Kranti Associates Private Limited & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. [2010] 9 SCC 496* to outline the duty to accord reasons for a decision, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of reasoning in the High Court’s order granting bail. The Court emphasized that while a detailed discussion of the merits of the case is not required at the bail stage, the High Court should have considered the gravity of the offense, the manner in which it was committed, the vulnerability of the deceased, the political influence of the accused, and the prima facie evidence against him. The Court also noted the previous rejections of bail by the lower courts and the fact that the accused was arrested only after protests by the deceased’s family. These factors indicated to the Supreme Court that the High Court had not properly applied its judicial mind while granting bail.

Fact:Law

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual aspects of the case, such as the manner of the murder and the vulnerability of the deceased, than by purely legal considerations. However, the legal framework regarding the grant of bail was also a significant factor.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder.
• Courts should consider the gravity of the offense, the manner in which it was committed, and the vulnerability of the victim.
• The political influence of the accused and the possibility of tampering with witnesses are relevant factors in bail decisions.
• Previous rejections of bail by lower courts should be taken into account.
• The absence of a reasoned order can lead to the cancellation of bail by a higher court.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent-accused to surrender before the concerned jail authorities within two weeks from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that High Courts must provide reasoned orders when granting bail, especially in cases involving serious offenses like murder. This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial discretion and the need for courts to consider all relevant factors before granting bail. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case clarifies the application of the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan underscores the importance of reasoned judicial decisions, particularly in matters of bail. The Court’s emphasis on considering the gravity of the offense, the manner of its commission, and the vulnerability of the victim serves as a reminder to lower courts to exercise their discretion judiciously. The judgment reinforces the principle that bail cannot be granted without a proper application of mind and a consideration of all relevant factors.