Bail Discretion Power Ought Not To Be Used Arbitrarily, Capriciously And Injudiciously: SC

It is of extreme significance to note that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ramayan Singh vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024 INSC 323 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No(s). 14988 of 2023 & 355 of 2024 that was pronounced on April 19, 2024 has underscored that the grant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power that ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously as it cancelled the bail granted by the Allahabad High Court to two accused allegedly involved in a broad daylight murder. It would be worthwhile to note that the Apex Court minced just no words to say unambiguously that the Allahabad High Court ought not to have granted bail in view of seriousness of offence, the conduct of accused of extending threats to the complainant and a witness and the overall impact of the crime on society. It must be noted that a Bench of Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma allowed an appeal that had been filed by Ramayan Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s orders of April 24 and October 31, 2023 granting bail to accused Vivek Pal alias Vikki Pal and Punit Pal respectively.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Satish Chandra Sharma for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol and himself sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 2 that, “The present appeal i.e., arising out of SLP(Crl.) No 14988 of 2023, seeks to assail the correctness of a judgment of the Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (the “High Court”) dated 24.04.2023 wherein, the High Court allowed Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal’s / Respondent No. 2’s bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) and accordingly enlarged Respondent No. 2 on bail subject to certain conditions contained therein (the “Impugned Order”).”

As we see, the Bench then discloses in para 3 that, “By an order dated 31.10.2023, a co-accused i.e., Punit Pal was enlarged on bail by a coordinate bench of the High Court. The appeal filed by the Appellant against that order has been tagged with the present appeal vide an order dated 02.01.2024 in SLP (Crl) No. 355 of 2024. Moreover, as the facts and the questions involved in the present appeal(s) are similar, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.”

To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 4 while elaborating on the facts of the case that, “The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him. It was also alleged that although the Appellant and Rahul i.e., the Driver attempted to intervene, they were injured by the accused persons. The accused persons snatched the mobile phones of the Deceased and the driver; as well as a gold chain belonging to the Deceased and ran away from the spot of the incident. The Deceased was initially rushed to the Primary Health Centre, Bankati, however, due to the serious nature of the injuries he was referred to the District Hospital, Basti and thereafter to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow where he eventually succumbed to his injuries on 10.02.2022.”

While continuing in the same vein, the Bench enunciates in para 5 that, “On the same day i.e., 10.02.2022, (i) an inquest report of the person of the Deceased was prepared wherein injuries were recorded on the head, hand and knee; and (ii) a post-mortem was conducted which revealed 4 (four) major ante mortem head injuries on the person of the Deceased. Pertinently, the cause of death was identified as coma due to ante mortem head injuries.”

Further, the Bench discloses in para 6 that, “Notably, Respondent No. 2 came to be apprehended in relation to the FIR on 05.01.2022 and the murder weapon i.e., a bat used in the assault of the Deceased was also recovered at his instance. On the other hand, Punit Pal came to be apprehended on 07.01.2022. A chargesheet came to be filed in relation to the FIR on 14.03.2022 under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 (“IPC”) read with Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 (the “Act”) (the “Chargesheet”). Pursuant to the filing of the Chargesheet, committal proceedings ensued and thereafter charges were framed against the accused person(s) vide an order dated 19.04.2023.”

Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 7 that, “Respondent No. 2 preferred an application seeking the grant of bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating from the FIR before the Learned Sessions Judge, Basti (the “Trial Court”). Vide an order dated 15.03.2022, the aforesaid bail application came to be rejected by the Trial Court. Thereafter, Respondent No. 2 filed an application seeking the grant of bail which came to be allowed by the High Court vide the Impugned Order.”

Most remarkably, the Bench while citing a relevant case law propounds in para 15 that, “It is well settled that the grant of bail involves the exercise of a discretionary power which ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously; and injudiciously. (Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508). In the aforesaid prism we must assess the correctness of the order(s) of the High Court granting Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceeding(s) emanating out of the FIR.”

While citing the most relevant case law, the Bench observes in para 16 that, “This Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496, enunciated certain parameters on which the correctness of an order granting bail must be evaluated. The relevant paragraph(s) are reproduced as under:

“9. …It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

***

10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of non-application of mind, rendering it to be illegal.”

Do note, the Bench notes in para 18 that, “Turning to the issue at hand, we note that Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal have been charged under inter alia Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 394, 411, 302 and 120B IPC on the basis of the materials on record including but not limited to the post-mortem report; and statements of witnesses. Furthermore, on 2 (two) occasions there have been allegations levelled against Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal alleging inter alia that the accused persons have attempted to intimidate the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant and another identified witnesses in an effort to de-rail the trial in the present case.”

Most significantly and so also most forthrightly, the Bench postulates in para 19 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment holding that, “Accordingly, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought not to have granted Respondent No. 2; and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceedings emanating from the FIR on account of (i) the seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s); and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large i.e., the accused person(s) were involved in a broad daylight murder which led to the closure of a market for a prolonged period of 10 (ten) days due to their overwhelming influence in the area.”

As a corollary, the Bench then directs in para 20 that, “In the aforementioned context, the impugned orders dated 24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 granting bail to accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal, respectively, cannot be sustained and are, accordingly, set aside.”

It is worth noting that the Bench notes and then directs in para 21 that, “The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. The bail bond(s) of accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal shall stand cancelled. The aforenoted person(s) shall be taken into custody forthwith. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Trial Court and PS Lalganj, Basti, Uttar Pradesh for onward action and necessary compliance. The Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.”

Finally and for sake of clarity, the Bench then clarifies in para 22 that, “It is clarified that any observations made in this judgment shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case at trial.”

All told, we thus see that the Apex Court has made it manifestly clear that the bail discretion power ought not to be used arbitrarily, capriciously and injudiciously. This was held so by the top court as it cancelled the bail that was granted by the Allahabad High Court to the two accused Vivek Pal alias Vikki Pal and Punit Pal on April 24 and October 31, 2023 who were allegedly involved in broad daylight murder. It thus merits no reiteration that all the courts in India including the High Courts apart from the Trial Courts must also always adhere in totality with what the Apex Court has held in this leading case so elegantly, eloquently and effectively. No denying it!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.