1. Murder and assault — FIR alleging joint commission of crime — Grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. — Challenge to bail orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 608
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
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 were correctly formulated and applied by Single Judge.
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 were correctly formulated and applied by Single Judge.
Subject
Bail - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
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.
Judgement Key Points
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. (!)
How to cancel anticipatory bail when the High Court has ignored material aspects and gravitas of the offence?
What is the standard for assessing anticipatory bail at the prima facie stage in serious offences like murder when future trial evidence is not yet examined?
What are the principles for cancellation of anticipatory bail as opposed to the initial grant of bail, in light of Mahipal and Sushila Aggarwal lineage?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Singh, Adv. Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. R.C. Mishra (Senior Advocate) Mr. Ananya Mishra, Advocate Mr. ILIN Saraswat, Advocate Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Uday Gupta, Adv. Ms. Shivani M. Lal, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Singh, Adv. Mr. M.K. Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Harish Dasan, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Hiren Dasan, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. R.C. Mishra (Senior Advocate) Mr. Ananya Mishra, Advocate Mr. ILIN Saraswat, Advocate Mr. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Arup Banerjee, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Reliance on flawed investigation report versus gravity of offence and eye-witness testimony — Alibi based on CDRs and CCTV versus specific roles in murder. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. High Court overlooked investigation deficiencies and the seriousness of the offence, relying on a report that ignored eye-witnesses and lacked comprehensive CCTV and fingerprint evidence. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 27 , 28 , 29 )
4. Anticipatory bail may be cancelled if the granting court fails to consider material facts, the gravity of the offence, or specific roles attributed to the accused. (Para 24 , 25 , 30 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court orders granting anticipatory bail set aside. (Para 31 )
6. What is the difference between challenging a bail order and applying for the cancellation of bail?
Challenging a bail order tests whether the discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perversely, or illegally. Conversely, cancellation of bail is generally examined based on the existence of supervening circumstances or the violation of bail conditions by the accused. (Para 24 )
7. What factors must a court consider when deciding an application for anticipatory bail?
Courts should be guided by the nature and gravity of the offence, the specific role attributed to the applicant, the likelihood of the applicant influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, or fleeing from justice. (Para 25 )
8. Under what circumstances can a superior court set aside an order granting bail?
A superior court may set aside a bail order if the granting court failed to consider relevant factors, the order suffers from non-application of mind, or the order is not supported by a prima facie view of the evidence on record. (Para 24 , 25 )
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:
“So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that if the applicant surrenders himself before concerned court within fifteen days from today, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Court for his regular appearance before the Court during trial.
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 Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.”
Similarly, while considering the application filed by Su
