Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Prashant Singh Rajput – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1202, 1203 of 2021, SLP (Crl) Nos. 5786, 5788 of 2021
Decided On : 08-10-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – Murder and hurt charges – Material at this stage cannot be examined with a fine toothcomb in manner of a criminal trial – What needs to be determined is whether parameters for grant of anticipatory bail were correctly formulated and applied by Single Judge – In relation to present incident, appellant’s case is supported by FIR, his statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C, and the statements of other two eye-witnesses under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. – Court has to determine whether on the basis of material available at this stage, High Court has applied correct principles in allowing applications for anticipatory bail – Offence is of a serious nature – FIR and statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. indicate a specific role to accused Singh in crime – Order granting anticipatory bail has ignored material aspects, including nature and gravity of offence, and specific allegations against accused – Sufficient case has been made out for cancelling anticipatory bail granted by High Court – Impugned judgments of Single Judge of High Court granting anticipatory bail to accused set aside. (Paras 21, 27, 30 and 31)
Facts of the case:
Present appeals arise from judgments dated 1 July 20211 and 31 May 20212 of a Single Judge of the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh through which it allowed the applications for anticipatory bail filed by second respondents in both the appeals under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19733 in connection with a crime4 registered at Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
Findings of Court:
The trial is yet to take place where evidence adduced by the prosecution will be appreciated, and veracity of appellant’s claim in his statement under Section 164 can be determined there. However, at the present stage, the FIR and both the appellant’s statements under Section 161 and 164 are consistent in as much as that Surbhayan Singh did hit him in his head with the butt of the gun. An argument has also been raised in relation to nature of the injury caused to the appellant, but this has to be decided at the stage of trial after evidence has been led.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - The Court allowed the appeals and cancelled anticipatory bail granted by the High Court for Joginder Singh and Surbhayan Singh. (!) - The Court held that at the anticipatory bail stage, the material cannot be examined with the precision of a trial; instead, the correctness of the principles applied by the High Court must be evaluated, especially given the seriousness of the offence (murder) and specific role allegations. (!) (!) - The decision discusses the distinction between evaluating bail grants and canceling bail, establishing that supervening circumstances or bail condition violations are relevant to cancellation, not to the original grant. (!) - The High Court was found to have relied on the 173(3) Cr.P.C. report while ignoring deficiencies highlighted in JMFC and trial court orders, and failed to address the roles of Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh as indicated in FIR/states. (!) - The FIR and statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. indicate specific roles for Joginder Singh and Suryabhan Singh in the crime, which supported cancellation of anticipatory bail. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment cites Mahipal and Sushila Aggarwal lineage to articulate the proper approach to bail cancellations vs grants. (!) (!) - The final order sets aside the High Court’s anticipatory bail orders and disposes of pending applications. (!)
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.
| Index | |
| (A) | The Appeal |
| (B) | Facts |
| (C) | Submissions |
| (D) | Analysis |
| (E) | Conclusion |
(A) The Appeal
1. These appeals arise from judgments dated 1 July 20211 [SLP (Criminal) No. 5786 of 2021 (the “lead appeal”)] and 31 May 20212 [SLP (Criminal) No. 5788 of 2021 (the “companion appeal”)] of a Single Judge of the Jabalpur Bench of the High Court for the State of Madhya Pradesh through which it allowed the applications for anticipatory bail filed by the second respondents in both the appeals under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19733 [“Cr.P.C.”] in connection with a crime4 [Crime No. 329 of 2020] registered at the Police Station Majholi, District Jabalpur, State of Madhya Pradesh for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18605 [“IPC”].
2. The crime was registered on the basis of a dehati nalsi/FIR lodged by the appellant on 29 September 2020. The allegation in the FIR is that the appellant was at Negai Tiraha with the deceased, Vikas Singh (who was his brother in-law) and two other individuals (Rajkishore Rajput and Dharmender Patel). It was alleged that the four accused persons, namely Ujiyar Singh, his two sons Chandrabhan Singh and Suryabhan Singh (the second respondent in the companion appeal) and his driver Joginder Singh (the second respondent in the lead appeal) arrived in a jeep. Thereafter, allegedly due to a previous rivalry, Ujiyar Singh and Chandrabhan Singh shot at Vikas Singh, while Joginder Singh held him, leading to his death while Suryabhan Singh hit the appellant on his head with the butt of his gun, leading to an injury. Upon being brought to a hospital, Vikas Singh was pronounced dead, following which the appellant got the FIR registered.
3. Suryabhan Singh and Joginder Singh filed applications seeking anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. apprehending their arrest in relation to the crime. While allowing the application for anticipatory bail of Joginder Singh, the High Court noted that according to the report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. the investigation did not reveal that he was even present at the spot of crime. The High Court observed that the veracity of such a report could not be questioned at this stage. Further, it held that even if he was present at the spot, there was no allegation against him of having fired at the deceased-Vikas Singh or having provoked Ujiyar Singh/ Chandrabhan Singh to fire at the deceased-Vikas Singh. Hence, the High Court passed the following order allowing his application for anticipatory bail:
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-
1. The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him.
2. The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be.
3. The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be.
4. The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused.
5. The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial.
6. The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial
Anticipatory bail – Material at this stage cannot be examined with a fine toothcomb in manner of a criminal trial – What needs to be determined is whether parameters for grant of anticipatory bail we....
The court emphasized that failure to consider the seriousness of accusations in bail orders may lead to miscarriage of justice, yet it upheld the anticipatory bail granted due to insufficient grounds....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly, especially in serious cases, and requires strict compliance with court-imposed conditions.
The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at th....
The statutory bar against anticipatory bail under special legislation operates effectively when a prima facie case is established through investigation. Parity with a co-accused is not an absolute ri....
Anticipatory bail can be denied if the applicant fails to comply with court orders and conditions, especially in serious cases involving multiple FIRs.
The power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the evidence on record, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or inf....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
