Supreme Court Cancels Anticipatory Bail in Madhya Pradesh Murder Case, 2021

Case Details

This case comprises two connected Criminal Appeals (Nos. 1202 & 1203 of 2021) arising from Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court of India. The Bench comprised Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and B. V. Nagarathna, JJ., and the judgment was delivered on 8 October 2021. The proceedings were set against the statutory framework of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (anticipatory bail) concerning offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder) and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The nature of the proceeding was an appeal against orders of the Jabalpur Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court granting anticipatory bail to two accused persons, which the appellant-complainant sought to have cancelled.

Facts

The material facts and procedural background are as follows. A First Information Report (Crime No. 329 of 2020) was lodged by the appellant, Prashant Singh Rajput, on 29 September 2020 at Police Station Majholi, Jabalpur. The FIR alleged that the appellant was at Negai Tiraha with his brother-in-law, Vikas Singh (the deceased), and two others when four accused persons arrived in a jeep. Due to a pre-existing rivalry, Ujiyar Singh and his son Chandrabhan Singh shot Vikas Singh, leading to his death. The driver, Joginder Singh (Respondent No. 2 in the lead appeal), was alleged to have held the deceased while he was shot. Another son, Suryabhan Singh (Respondent No. 2 in the companion appeal), allegedly hit the appellant on the head with the butt of a gun. The genesis of the enmity was traced to prior complaints by the deceased against the accused family concerning illegal sand mining and threats. A cross-FIR (Crime No. 331 of 2020) was also registered by Ujiyar Singh alleging an attack on him by the deceased and the appellant. The investigating officer initially filed a report under Section 173 CrPC on 15 December 2020, naming only Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh as accused and claiming Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh were in Jabalpur, 40 km away, based on call records and CCTV footage. The appellant filed a protest petition. The Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Siroha, by order dated 13 January 2021, noted serious deficiencies in the investigation—such as ignoring eyewitness statements, not checking relevant CCTV footage, and failing to conduct fingerprint analysis—and directed further investigation. A supplementary challan was filed, but the JMFC's subsequent order dated 10 March 2021 observed it still did not properly address the roles of Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh, who were then summoned. Their applications for anticipatory bail were rejected by the trial court on 24 March 2021. However, the High Court, by separate orders dated 31 May 2021 and 1 July 2021, allowed their applications under Section 438 CrPC, primarily relying on the initial investigation report. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Issues

The legal questions before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether the High Court, while granting anticipatory bail, applied the correct legal principles and considered all material aspects, particularly the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the accused? (2) Whether the High Court erred in relying predominantly on the investigating officer's initial report while overlooking its serious deficiencies as highlighted by the JMFC and the trial court? (3) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, a sufficient case was made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court?

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court, thereby cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh. The Court's detailed reasoning on each issue is as follows.

The Court first delineated the correct legal approach for evaluating a challenge to an order granting bail versus an application for cancellation of bail. Relying on its precedent in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar, the Court held that the correctness of a bail order is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of discretion—whether the order is perverse, illegal, or unjustified. This assessment involves examining whether the court granting bail failed to consider relevant factors or if the order is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence. This is distinct from cancellation based on supervening circumstances or violation of bail conditions. The Court further invoked the principles governing anticipatory bail from the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), which mandates consideration of the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the applicant, and the likelihood of influencing investigation or tampering with evidence.

Applying these principles, the Court found the High Court's orders suffered from a fundamental flaw. The High Court had placed exclusive reliance on the investigating officer's report dated 15 December 2020, which stated Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh were not present at the crime scene. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to address the crucial deficiencies in the investigation meticulously catalogued by the JMFC and the trial court. These omissions included: the failure to properly evaluate the eyewitness statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC; reliance on CCTV footage from a time period after the incident while ignoring footage from the relevant time; not collecting CCTV footage from the route between Jabalpur and the crime scene; relying on call data records without verifying if the accused actually used the mobile numbers; and not conducting fingerprint analysis on the alleged jeep or weapon. The JMFC had ordered further investigation precisely due to these gaps, and the supplementary challan did not adequately address the roles of the two respondents. By overlooking these material aspects, the High Court's decision was based on an incomplete and potentially flawed evidentiary record.

On the nature of the allegations, the Court emphasized the seriousness of the offence—murder under Section 302 IPC. The FIR and the statements of the appellant and two other eyewitnesses under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC attributed specific, active roles to both respondents. Joginder Singh was alleged to have driven the jeep and held the deceased to prevent his escape, facilitating the shooting. Suryabhan Singh was alleged to have assaulted the appellant with the butt of a gun, causing injury. The Court rejected the respondents' arguments about minor inconsistencies in the statements (such as the timing of arrival or an additional alleged gunshot), holding that such evidentiary minutiae are to be examined at trial and cannot be used to discard the prima facie allegations at the bail stage. The argument regarding the nature of the appellant's injury was also deferred to the trial stage.

The Court also addressed the context of previous enmity and the cross-FIR. It held that while enmity existed between the parties, its existence did not automatically invalidate the prosecution's case at this stage. The High Court erred in effectively preferring the alternate version in Ujiyar Singh's cross-FIR while ignoring the substantive allegations and evidentiary deficiencies pointed out in the prosecution's case. The Court's role was not to determine who was involved in illegal sand mining but to assess whether the material on record prima facie implicated the accused.

Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's orders granting anticipatory bail ignored material aspects, including the gravity of the offence and the specific allegations against the accused persons supported by eyewitness accounts. The failure to consider the JMFC's and trial court's findings on the investigation's flaws rendered the High Court's exercise of discretion improper and unjustified. Therefore, a sufficient case for cancellation of anticipatory bail was made out.

Quotes

Essential extracts from the judgment include: "The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified." (Para 24, citing Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar). "While considering an application... the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence..." (Para 25, citing Sushila Aggarwal). "The offence is of a serious nature in which Vikas Singh was murdered. The FIR and the statements under sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, 1973 indicate a specific role to Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime. The order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh. Hence, a sufficient case has been made out for cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court." (Para 29).