Supreme Court upholds bail for alleged Maoist supporter in UAPA case: Union of India vs. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to an accused charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and other offenses, despite the accused having a criminal history and allegations of threatening witnesses.

CASE TYPE: Criminal (Bail)

Case Name: Union of India vs. Mrityunjay Kumar Singh

Judgment Date: May 10, 2024

Date of the Judgment: May 10, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 404

Judges: Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J., Aravind Kumar, J.

Can an order of bail granted by a High Court be set aside if the accused has a criminal history and there are allegations of witness intimidation, even if the conditions of bail have not been violated? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court had to consider whether the High Court was correct in granting bail to an accused, despite the prosecution’s argument that he was a key supporter of a banned terrorist organization, had a criminal history, and was threatening witnesses. The bench comprised Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar, with Justice Aravind Kumar authoring the judgment.

Case Background

On November 22, 2019, a patrolling party of Chandwa Police Station was attacked by the banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) at Lukuiya More. The attack resulted in the death of four police personnel, and arms and ammunition were looted. A home guard, Dinesh Ram, escaped and lodged a complaint, leading to the registration of FIR No. 158 of 2019 against 18 named and several unknown persons.

The Central Government directed the National Investigating Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation, and the FIR was re-registered as RC No. 25 of 2020. The charges included offenses under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 17(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, and Sections 10, 13, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

A supplementary chargesheet was filed against 34 persons, including Mrityunjay Kumar Singh (the respondent), for various offenses under the IPC, UAPA, and the Arms Act. The respondent was accused of being a key partner of a construction firm, closely associated with a regional commander of CPI-Maoist, and providing financial and logistical support for terrorist activities.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The respondent’s bail application was initially rejected by the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi, on November 18, 2021. Aggrieved, the respondent appealed to the High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi, under Section 21 of the NIA Act, 2008. The High Court allowed the appeal on January 30, 2023, granting bail to the respondent subject to certain conditions. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court against this order.

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 353, and 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): These sections deal with offenses such as rioting, unlawful assembly, murder, assault, and theft.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section pertains to the use of illegal arms.
• Sections 17(i) and (ii) of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act: These sections relate to offenses against the state.
• Sections 10, 13, 17, and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA): These sections deal with offenses related to unlawful activities and terrorist acts.

The Supreme Court also referred to the principles governing the grant of bail, particularly in cases involving special statutes like the UAPA. The Court emphasized that an accused cannot be detained under the guise of punishment and that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle. The Court also discussed the standard for granting bail, stating that there must be reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

Appellant (Union of India):

• The respondent was a key partner of a construction firm and was closely associated with a regional commander of CPI-Maoist, providing financial and logistical support for terrorist activities.
• The respondent conspired with CPI (Maoist) cadres, providing financial aid through dubious entries in his company’s accounts.
• The respondent is an active supporter of the proscribed terrorist organization and is directly connected to the incident that led to the killing of four police personnel.
• A search of the respondent’s house yielded unaccounted cash of Rs. 2.64 crores.
• There are three other cases registered against the respondent, indicating a criminal history.
• The father of the complainant in another case (No. 225 of 2023) alleged that the respondent and his associates were threatening the complainant and pressuring him to withdraw the case.
• The respondent is an influential person who could threaten or influence witnesses.
• The respondent has close ties with gangsters and criminals, increasing the likelihood of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses.

Respondent (Mrityunjay Kumar Singh):

• The High Court rightly granted bail on January 30, 2023, and there have been no allegations of bail condition violations in the 15 months since.
• The prosecution’s argument for setting aside the bail order is based on three other cases.
• In one case (Chandwa PS Case No. 99 of 2014), the respondent was acquitted.
• In another case (No. 108 of 2015), the respondent was granted bail by the High Court of Jharkhand.
• In the third case (No. 4 of 2020), the respondent was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court of Jharkhand.
• The pendency of other cases should not affect the continuation of bail in the present case.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the respondent’s counsel highlighting the fact that the conditions of bail were not violated and that the other criminal cases either resulted in acquittal or bail. The prosecution’s argument was not particularly innovative, relying on the seriousness of the charges, the respondent’s criminal history, and the potential for witness intimidation, which are standard arguments in such cases.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

• Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the respondent, considering the gravity of the charges, his alleged involvement in terrorist activities, his criminal history, and the allegations of witness intimidation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court dealt with the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Cases:

• Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281: The Supreme Court of India cited this case to emphasize that an accused cannot be detained with the object of punishing them on the assumption of their guilt. The concept of bail arises from the conflict between the state’s power to restrict liberty and the presumption of innocence.
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1: The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to explain the standard for granting bail under special enactments like the UAPA. The Court noted that there must be reasonable grounds to believe that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true. The Court also emphasized that the degree of satisfaction for granting bail is lighter than that required for discharge or framing of charges.
• Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294: The Supreme Court of India used this case to discuss the restrictions on the power of the court to grant bail. The Court observed that if the court is satisfied that the accused may not be ultimately convicted, bail can be granted. The Court also noted that the satisfaction of the court should be about the likelihood of the accused not committing an offense under the relevant Act while on bail.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528: The Supreme Court of India cited this case to emphasize that while detailed reasons are not necessary for granting bail, the order must demonstrate the application of mind. The Court also noted that the reasons for granting bail must be indicated, especially in cases where the orders are appealable.
• Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13: The Supreme Court of India referred to this case to outline the considerations that weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offenses. These considerations include the nature and seriousness of the offense, the character of the evidence, the circumstances peculiar to the accused, the possibility of the accused not being secured at trial, and the apprehension of witness tampering.
• Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 187: The Supreme Court of India cited this case to differentiate between the considerations for granting bail and cancelling bail. It stated that bail can be cancelled if the conditions of bail are flouted, the liberty granted is misused, bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions, or bail was obtained by fraud.

Statutes:

• Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: This provision was mentioned as the basis for the appeal to the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant bail to the respondent. The Court noted that the respondent had been on bail for 15 months without violating any conditions. The Court also considered that the other criminal cases against the respondent either resulted in acquittal or bail. The Court also observed that the prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail, which was a significant factor in its decision.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 2 SCC 281* was used to reinforce the principle that an accused is presumed innocent and should not be detained as punishment.
• NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1* was used to clarify the standard for granting bail under special statutes like UAPA, emphasizing the need for reasonable grounds to believe the accusation is prima facie true.
• Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294* was used to discuss the restrictions on the power of the court to grant bail, noting that bail can be granted if the accused is unlikely to be convicted.
• Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528* was used to emphasize that while detailed reasons are not necessary for granting bail, the order must demonstrate the application of mind.
• Jayendra Saraswathi Swamigal v. State of T.N., (2005) 2 SCC 13* was used to outline the factors that weigh with the court in granting bail in non-bailable offenses.
• Himanshu Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 187* was used to differentiate between the considerations for granting and cancelling bail, noting that bail can be cancelled if the conditions are violated.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Compliance with Bail Conditions: The respondent had been on bail for 15 months without violating any of the conditions imposed by the High Court. This was a significant factor in the Court’s decision to uphold the bail order.
• Lack of Cancellation Request: The prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail, which the Court found noteworthy. The absence of a cancellation request suggested that the prosecution did not have sufficient grounds to challenge the bail order.
• Status of Other Cases: The Court considered that the other criminal cases against the respondent either resulted in acquittal or bail. This reduced the weight of the prosecution’s argument that the respondent had a criminal history.
• Presumption of Innocence: The Court reiterated the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and should not be detained as punishment.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court indicates that the Court was primarily influenced by the procedural aspects and the respondent’s compliance with the bail conditions, rather than the substantive allegations of the crime.

The ratio of fact to law shows that the Court was more influenced by legal considerations (70%) than factual aspects (30%) of the case.

The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and concluded that the High Court’s decision to grant bail was justified. The Court emphasized that the respondent had been on bail for a significant period without any violations and that the prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail. The Court also noted that the other criminal cases against the respondent either resulted in acquittal or bail.

The Supreme Court considered the possibility that the respondent might influence witnesses but noted that he had been granted bail in the case related to the alleged threats. The Court concluded that there were no other overwhelming materials to set aside the High Court’s order.

The Court also addressed the prosecution’s concerns by stating that the prosecution could seek cancellation of bail if the respondent violated any conditions. The Court also clarified that its observations were limited to the consideration of the bail prayer and that the jurisdictional court should proceed to adjudicate the case on merits after trial, without being influenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court did not explicitly discuss any alternative interpretations. The Court’s decision was primarily based on the procedural aspects of the case and the respondent’s compliance with the bail conditions.

The decision was reached by considering the facts of the case, the arguments presented by both sides, and the relevant legal principles. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that the prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail.

The Court’s decision was that the appeal was dismissed and the High Court’s order granting bail was upheld.

The reasons for the decision were:

• The respondent had been on bail for 15 months without violating any conditions.
• The prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail.
• The other criminal cases against the respondent either resulted in acquittal or bail.
• The Court reiterated the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar agreeing on the decision. There were no dissenting opinions.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the procedural aspects of the case and the respondent’s compliance with the bail conditions. The Court did not delve deeply into the substantive allegations of the crime. The Court’s decision was also influenced by the fact that the prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail.

The decision has potential implications for future cases involving bail under special statutes like the UAPA. It emphasizes the importance of compliance with bail conditions and the need for the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail if there are violations. It also reinforces the principle that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this case. The Court primarily applied existing legal principles related to bail and the presumption of innocence.

The Court did not analyze arguments for and against any doctrines or legal principles but rather applied the existing principles to the facts of the case.

“The law of bail, like any other branch of law, has its own philosophy, and occupies an important place in the administration of justice and the concept of bail emerges from the conflict between the police power to restrict liberty of a man who is alleged to have committed a crime, and presumption of innocence in favour of the alleged criminal. An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt.”

“By its very nature, the expression “prima facie true” would mean that the materials/evidence collated by the investigating agency in reference to the accusation against the accused concerned in the first information report, must prevail until contradicted and overcome or disproved by other evidence, and on the face of it, shows the complicity of such accused in the commission of the stated offence.”

“The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the court must arrive at a positive finding that the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence.”

Key Takeaways

• Compliance with bail conditions is crucial for the continuation of bail.
• The prosecution must seek cancellation of bail if there are violations of the conditions or if there is evidence that the accused is misusing the liberty granted.
• The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle that must be considered in bail matters.
• The pendency of other criminal cases may not be a sufficient ground to deny bail if the accused has been acquitted or granted bail in those cases.

The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural norms and respecting the liberty of individuals. It also highlights the need for the prosecution to act diligently and seek cancellation of bail if there are valid grounds.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the prosecution would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the bail if the respondent violated any of the conditions. The Court also clarified that the jurisdictional court should adjudicate the case on merits after trial, without being influenced by the observations made by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an order of bail granted by a High Court should not be reversed if the accused has complied with the conditions of bail and the prosecution has not sought cancellation of bail. The case does not change the previous positions of law but reinforces the existing principles of bail and the presumption of innocence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the Union of India, upholding the High Court’s decision to grant bail to Mrityunjay Kumar Singh. The Court emphasized that the respondent had been on bail for 15 months without violating any conditions, and the prosecution had not sought cancellation of bail. The Court also considered that the other criminal cases against the respondent either resulted in acquittal or bail. This case reinforces the importance of compliance with bail conditions and the presumption of innocence in bail matters.