While setting the highest standard for the Courts in dealing with cases involving personal liberty of an accused person, the Supreme Court’s Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice MR Shah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari in a most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment titled Yashpal Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. in Criminal Appeal No. 1509 of 2022 in exercise of its criminal appellate jurisdiction pronounced as recently as on September 15, 2022 has minced absolutely no words to hold that when an accused person is facing trial under Section 302, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which are serious offences, the Court must give cogent reasons while releasing them on bail. In this case, a land dispute was going on between the accused Mehtab and the complainant side. It was alleged that on the intervening night of June 29th/30th, 2021 a tractor was driven over standing crops on the disputed land in question by the accused persons with the intention to take over possession. It was alleged that all these accused persons were armed with pistols, lathi, iron rods etc.
Adding more, it was further alleged that the informant along with his family members and people of village came to the spot and at that time accused persons attacked them with an intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal who was brother of informant died on the spot and five others were seriously injured. It was further alleged that one Vikas @ Pappu fired shot at the deceased and the accused persons fled extending threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded and he supported the FIR version. After his bail was rejected by the Trial Court, the accused Mehtab was later granted bail by the High Court. Aggrieved by this bail, the original informant approached the Apex Court.
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice MR Shah for a Bench of Apex Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned final judgment and order dated 18.01.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 49828 of 2021, by which the High Court has directed to release respondent No.2 – original accused on bail in Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police Station Falavda, District Meerut for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, original informant – original complainant has preferred the present appeal.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 2 herein and others were specifically named in the FIR. A land dispute was going on between respondent No. 2 – Mehtab and the complainant side. It was specifically alleged in the FIR which was given by the appellant that the land dispute of a land in possession of informant – Yashwant Singh was pending in the Court against accused Mehtab and Deepak. It was further alleged that on intervening night of 29/30.06.2021 a tractor was driven over standing crops on the disputed land in question by the accused persons with intention to take over possession and all these accused persons were armed with pistols, lathi, iron rod etc. It was further alleged that informant along with his family members and people of village came to the spot and at that time accused persons attacked them with intention to kill, consequent to which Sompal brother of informant died on the spot and Sunder, Naresh, Mohit, Luvkush and Ankush were seriously injured. It was further alleged that accused Vikas @ Pappu fired shot at the deceased and the accused persons fled extending threat of death. During the investigation, the statement of injured eye witness – appellant herein has been recorded and he supported the FIR version.”
While continuing in the same vein, the Bench then points out in para 2.1 stating, “That thereafter respondent No. 2 herein, after his arrest and after his bail was rejected by the learned Trial Court, approached the High Court by way of present bail application. By the impugned judgment and order without considering the seriousness and/or gravity of the offences committed by the accused more particularly respondent No. 2 and without giving any reason, has released respondent No. 2 on bail.”
Needless to say, the Bench then states in para 3 that, “We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length.”
Most notably, it is worth noting that the Bench then enunciates in para 4 what constitutes the cornerstone of this notable judgment holding that, “We have gone through the allegations made in the FIR. It is required to be noted that the land dispute between respondent No. 2 – Mehtab and complainant side is the motive. It is alleged in the FIR that on the earlier night they ran over the tractor on the standing crop and the accused persons tried to take over the possession. That thereafter when the informant and others gathered at the spot the accused persons named in the FIR attacked them and in the said incident brother of the informant died and other persons were seriously injured. The aforesaid aspect has not at all been considered by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. No reason whatsoever has been given by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. When the accused person is facing the trial under Sections 147, 148, 307, 302 and other offences of IPC, which can be said to be are very serious offences, the High Court ought to have given cogent reasons while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail except narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the State, no further independent reason has been given by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 on bail.”
No less significant is what is then stated in para 4.1 of this brilliant judgment wherein it is postulated that, “From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that it was submitted on behalf of the accused that there was a dark night therefore, it was not possible to identify the accused and/or the person who attacked and it appears that without giving any cogent reason the High Court has prima facie accepted the same. However, it is required to be noted that the accused persons were known to the complainant. There was a prior enmity. They came in a tractor. Therefore, at this stage it could not have been concluded and/or opined that it was not possible to identify the accused. Be that as it may, even otherwise the aforesaid can be said to be a defence on the part of the accused which is required to be considered at the time of trial. In the present case in the FIR the injured – informant – complainant has specifically named the accused persons. Even in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC the informant has stood by what has been stated in the FIR. Under the circumstances, when the nature of allegations and the seriousness and gravity of the offences has not at all been considered by the High Court and no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing respondent No. 2 – accused on bail, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court directing to release respondent No. 2 on bail is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.”
Finally and as a corollary, the Bench then aptly concludes by holding most forthrightly in para 5 that, “In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing respondent No. 2 on bail in connection with Case Crime No. 95 of 2021 of Police Station Falavda, District Meerut for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 427, 441, 323, 506, 447, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed and set aside. Now, respondent No. 2 – accused to surrender before the concerned Jail Authority forthwith. The present Appeal is accordingly allowed.”
All said and done, the bottom-line of this most refreshing, remarkable, robust, rational and recent judgment by Hon’ble Mr Justice MR Shah and Hon’ble Mr Justice Krishna Murari of the Apex Court is that the Court must definitely always give without fail cogent reasons while giving bail to the accused persons who are facing trial in serious offences. It thus merits no reiteration that all the Courts in India whether it is the Trial Courts or the High Courts must all always comply in letter and spirit with what the Apex Court has laid down so very explicitly, elegantly and effectively in this leading case and must always give cogent reasons while giving bail to the accused persons who are facing trial in serious offences. This will certainly ensure that those who are accused in serious offences are not set free at the whims and fancies of the Judge and this in turn will also ensure that Judges are definitely held accountable for what they deliver in their judgment as they will have to give the reasons in writing always for releasing those who are accused in serious offences like Section 302 and Section 307 of the IPC! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi