Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 326

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench)
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., SURYA KANT, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Jagjeet Singh and Others – Appellants
Versus
Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022, Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2640 of 2022
Decided On : 18-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Dushyant Dave, Prashant Bhushan, Rahul Gupta, Mohd. Amaan, Shashank Singh, Alice Raj, Neha Sangwan, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):T. Mahipal, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Victim’s right to appeal – Right of a victim under amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights – These rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of State under Cr.P.C.
(2) Bail – Court while deciding application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at threshold stage.
(3) Bail – Ordinarily, Apex Court would be slow in interfering with any order wherein bail has been granted by Court below.
(4) Bail – No accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 372 read with Section 2(wa) – UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985 – Victim’s right to appeal – Right of a victim under amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights – Victim’s right cannot be termed or construed restrictively – These rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of State under Cr.P.C. – Presence of ‘State’ in proceedings does not tantamount to according hearing to ‘victim’ of crime – A ‘victim’ within meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in proceedings – He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post occurrence of an offence – Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from stage of investigation till culmination of proceedings in an appeal or revision – ‘Victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence – It is not always necessary that complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be complainant or informant of a felony – Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged – Where victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with opportunity of a fair and effective hearing – If right to file appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with right to be heard at the time of deciding bail application, same may result in grave miscarriage of justice – Victims cannot be expected to be sitting on fence and watching proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances – It is solemn duty of court to deliver justice before memory of an injustice eclipses. (Paras 23, 24 and 25)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application – Disposal of – Parameters – Court while deciding application for bail, should refrain from evaluating or undertaking a detailed assessment of evidence, as the same is not a relevant consideration at threshold stage – While Court may examine prima facie issues including any reasonable grounds whether accused committed an offence or severity of offence itself, extensive consideration of merits which has potential to prejudice either case of prosecution or defence, is undesirable. (Paras 30 and 33)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Complainant in as well as present Appellants are close relatives of farmers who have lost their lives in incident – Application seeking rehearing on the ground that ‘victims’ could not participate in proceedings was also moved but same was not considered by High Court while granting bail to Respondent-Accused – In present case, ‘victims’ have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to Respondent-Accused – Power to grant bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., is one of wide amplitude – High Court Sessions Court, are bestowed with considerable discretion while deciding application for bail – But, this discretion is not unfettered – High Court or Sessions Court must grant bail after application of a judicial mind, following well-established principles, and not in a cryptic or mechanical manner – Ordinarily, Apex Court would be slow in interfering with any order wherein bail has been granted by Court below – However, if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse6, or is founded upon irrelevant materials adding vulnerability to order granting bail, Appellate Court will be well within its ambit in setting aside the same and cancelling bail. (Paras 26, 27, 28 and 29)
(D) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of bail – Challenge as to – Instead of looking into aspects such as nature and gravity of offence; severity of punishment in the event of conviction; circumstances which are peculiar to accused or victims; likelihood of accused fleeing; likelihood of tampering with evidence and witnesses and impact that his release may have on trial and society at large; High Court has adopted a myopic view of evidence on record and proceeded to decide the case on merits – High Court has taken into account several irrelevant considerations, whilst simultaneously ignoring judicial precedents and established parameters for grant of bail – F.I.R. cannot be treated as an encyclopaedia of events – While allegations in F.I.R., that accused used his firearm and subsequent post mortem and injury reports may have some limited bearing, there was no legal necessity to give undue weightage to the same – Order under challenge does not conform to relevant considerations – Impugned order of High Court cannot be sustained and has to be set aside – Bail bonds of the respondent/accused cancelled and he is directed to surrender within a week – However, no accused can be subjected to unending detention pending trial, especially when law presumes him to be innocent until proven guilty – Even where statutory provisions expressly bar grant of bail, after a reasonably long period of incarceration, or for any other valid reason, such stringent provisions will melt down and cannot be measured over and above right of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution – Apex Court on account of factors like (i) irrelevant considerations having impacted impugned order granting bail; (ii) High Court exceeding its jurisdiction by touching upon merits of case; (iii) denial of victims’ right to participate in proceedings; and (iv) tearing hurry shown by High Court in entertaining or granting bail to respondent/accused; can rightfully cancel bail, without depriving Respondent-Accused of his legitimate right to seek enlargement on bail on relevant considerations – Ends of justice would be adequately met by remitting this case High Court for a fresh adjudication of bail application of Respondent-Accused, in a fair, impartial and dispassionate manner, and keeping in view settled parameters – Bail application shall be decided on merits and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to victims as well. (Paras 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43 and 44)
Facts of the case:
Challenge is laid to an order dated 10.02.2022 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench, whereby Respondent-Accused has been enlarged on bail in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 read with Sections 34 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Sections 3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959. When the farmers were returning to their homes after their protest was over, Respondent-Accused along with his associates who were in three vehicles, allegedly drove into the crowd of returning farmers and hit them with an intention to kill. Resultantly, many farmers and other persons were crushed by the vehicles. The vehicle was eventually stopped. Respondent No.1 and his co-accused then stepped out of the vehicle and escaped by running towards a nearby sugarcane field while taking cover by firing their weapons.
Findings of Court:
If incident, has happened in the manner as alleged, the same should serve as an awakening call to the State authorities to reinforce adequate protection for the life, liberty, and properties of eye/injured witnesses, as well as for the families of the deceased.
Result : Appeal disposed of with observations.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

Victim’s Right to Participate: Victims have substantive and enforceable rights under the amended criminal procedure code, which are independent of the state's rights. They have a legally vested right to be heard at every stage of criminal proceedings, from investigation through to appeal or revision, and cannot be made to wait until trial begins to assert these rights (!) (!) (!) .
Distinction Between Victim and Complainant: A victim is different from a complainant or informant. A victim can be someone who has suffered harm regardless of whether they are the complainant, and even strangers to the act of crime can be considered victims (!) .
Right to Be Heard at Bail Proceedings: Victims must be given an opportunity to be heard during bail hearings. Denying victims this opportunity can lead to a miscarriage of justice, especially in cases involving heinous crimes. Their participation is essential for a fair process (!) (!) .
Court’s Discretion in Granting Bail: While courts have wide discretion to grant bail, this discretion must be exercised judiciously and based on relevant considerations. Orders granting bail should not be based on irrelevant factors or merit assessments of the case, especially before trial. Orders must be reasoned, and relevant factors such as the nature of the offense, the likelihood of tampering with evidence, flight risk, and societal impact should guide decisions (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Rejection of Irrelevant or Merits-Based Considerations: Orders that overlook relevant considerations or that touch upon the merits of the case at the bail stage are illegal and can be set aside. The evidence should not be evaluated in detail at this stage, and the order must be free from extraneous or irrelevant factors (!) .
Cancellation of Bail and Remand: Orders granting bail can be set aside if they are found to be illegal or perverse, and the accused can be directed to surrender. However, the law recognizes that unending detention is unjust, and the right to seek bail remains, with courts often remanding cases for a fresh, fair hearing (!) (!) (!) .
Balance of Rights: The rights of victims to participate and be heard must be balanced with the rights of the accused to liberty. Courts should ensure that neither side's rights are unjustly compromised, and proceedings should be conducted fairly and impartially (!) .
Remission for Fair Trial: When bail is canceled, it is not an indefinite deprivation of liberty. The accused retains the right to seek bail again under relevant considerations, and courts should ensure that detention pending trial is not unreasonably prolonged (!) .
Duty of the Court: Courts have a duty to deliver justice, considering all relevant circumstances, and to avoid decisions based on irrelevant considerations. They should also ensure victims are provided with adequate opportunity and legal aid if necessary (!) (!) .
Court’s Responsibility in Reconsideration: When bail orders are challenged, courts must revisit their decisions, ensuring they are based on relevant facts and principles. They should also consider the rights of victims and the need for a fair and balanced approach (!) .

These points summarize the core legal principles and procedural considerations outlined in the document, emphasizing the importance of fair treatment of victims, proper exercise of judicial discretion, and adherence to principles of justice in bail proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The challenge is laid to an order dated 10.02.2022 [2022 0 Supreme(All) 362] passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow bench, whereby Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter “Respondent-Accused”) has been enlarged on bail in a case under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 326 read with Sections 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) as well as Sections 3, 25 and 30 of the Arms Act, 1959.

FACTS

3. In brief, it is alleged that several farmers had gathered in the Khairaitya village in Lakhimpur Kheri District on 29.09.2021, to celebrate the birth anniversary of Sardar Bhagat Singh and to protest against the Indian Agricultural Acts of 2020. During this gathering, the farmers objected to certain comments made by Mr. Ajay Mishra @ Teni, Union Minister of State for Home. In the course of the meeting, the farmers decided to organise a protest against Mr. Ajay Mishra in his ancestral village on 03.10.2021. Various farmers’ organisations issued appeals to their members and supporters to participate in the demonstration and pamphlets were also distributed.

4. On 03.10.2021, an annual Dangal (wrestling) competition was being organised by Ashish Mishra @ Monu, i.e. Respondent-Accused. The program was to be attended by Mr. Ajay Mishra, as well as Mr. Keshav Prasad Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for whom a helipad was constructed in the playground of Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, Tikonia. A crowd of farmers started gathering near the helipad in the morning of 03.10.2021. The route of the Chief Guest was thus changed to take him by road. But the changed road route was also passing in front of the Maharaja Agrasen Inter College, where the protesting farmers had been gathering in large numbers. This led the authorities to take recourse to yet another alternative way to reach the Dangal venue.

5. In the meantime, some supporters of Respondent No. 1, who were travelling by a car to the Dangal venue, were statedly attacked by certain farmers. The mirrors of their vehicles were smashed. A hoarding board that displayed pictures of Mr. Ajay Mishra and the Respondent-Accused was also damaged. It is alleged that upon gathering knowledge of these events, coupled with the information that the route of the Chief Guest had to be changed because of the protesting farmers, Respondent-Accused became agitated. He, thereafter, is said to have conspired with his aides and confidants, and decided to teach the protesting farmers a lesson. Respondent No. 1 and his aides, armed with weapons, left the Dangal venue in a Mahindra Thar SUV, a Fortuner vehicle and a Scorpio vehicle and drove towards the farmers’ protest site.

6. When the farmers were returning to their homes after their protest was over, Respondent-Accused along with his associates who were in the aforesaid three vehicles, allegedly drove into the crowd of the returning farmers and hit them with an intention to kill. Resultantly, many farmers and other persons were crushed by the vehicles. The Thar vehicle was eventually stopped. Respondent No. 1 and his co-accused Sumit Jaiswal then stepped out of the Thar and escaped by running towards a nearby sugarcane field while taking cover by firing their weapons.

7. As a consequence of this incident, four farmers, one journalist, the driver of the Thar Vehicle-Hariom, and two others, were killed. Nearly ten farmers suffered major and minor injuries.

8. In the early hours of 04.10.2021, FIR No. 219 of 2021 was registered on the complaint of the Appellant No. 1, i.e. Jagjeet Singh, at Police Station Tikonia against Respondent No. 1 and 15-20 unknown persons, for causing the death of four farmers. It was alleged that Respondent No. 1 along with his accomplices drove into the crowd of protesting farmers and crushed them. It was further alleged that one Sukhvinder Singh died on the spot due to a fire arm injury. Another FIR¹ [FIR No. 220 of 2021 was registered unde