Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 360

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, CJI., KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, JJ.
Imran – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Bhava and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 2022, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 27 of 2022
WITH
Imran – Appellant
Versus
Mohammed Musthafa and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 659 of 2022, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2022
Decided On : 22-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shekhar G. Devasa, Adv. Mr. Manish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Satvira Pattanayak, Adv. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Nagar, Adv. For M/s. Devasa & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Anshuman Ashok, AOR Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Aarif Ali, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, Adv. Mr. Shakeel Ahmad, Adv. Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation.
(2) Bail can be revoked by a superior court when previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of offence or its societal impact.

Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Grant of anticipatory bail and bail – Challenge as to – Once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation – However, bail can be revoked by a superior court when previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of offence or its societal impact – While considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if relevant material on record, gravity of offence or its societal impact have not been considered by lower court – In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, order granting bail is liable to be set aside – While each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to well-settled principles – High Court while granting bail to accused Respondents, failed to consider nature of accusations and relevant evidentiary material against them – High Court lost sight of fact that there exists sufficient material against accused Respondents herein, so as to establish a prima facie case against them – Orders granting bail set aside. (Paras 23, 26, 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Present two appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 08.02.2021 and 19.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 6052/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 3902/2020 respectively. Respondent No. 1 herein, in the two petitions, namely Mohammed Bhava & Mohammed Musthafa, have been arrayed as Accused No. 6 and Accused No. 8 in FIR No. 38/2020 dated 05.06.2020. The said Respondents, along with eight other co-accused, have been charged for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 of Indian Penal Code, read with section 149 of IPC. The High Court vide orders impugned herein has allowed the anticipatory bail application and bail application respectively, of the two Respondents. Key issue which requires determination in the instant case is whether impugned orders of the High Court have over-looked established principles, while exercising discretion to enlarge both the accused on bail.
Findings of Court:
Impugned orders dated 08.02.2021 and 19.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 6052/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 3902/2020, releasing the Accused No. 6 and 8 on bail, are set aside. Respondents-accused are directed to surrender before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today failing which they shall be taken into police custody for the said purpose.
Result : Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA MURARI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These two appeals are directed against the judgments and orders dated 08.02.2021 and 19.10.2020 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 6052/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 3902/2020 respectively. Respondent No. 1 herein, in the two petitions, namely Mohammed Bhava & Mohammed Musthafa, have been arrayed as Accused No. 6 and Accused No. 8 in FIR No. 38/2020 dated 05.06.2020. The said Respondents, along with eight other co-accused, have been charged for offences under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’) read with section 149 of IPC. The High Court vide orders impugned herein has allowed the anticipatory bail application and bail application respectively, of the two Respondents.

Factual Matrix

3. The Appellant herein (original complainant) is the son of Abdul Lathif (deceased). On 05.06.20, initially, an FIR was registered under sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302, 395 IPC, read with section 149 of IPC. Post investigation, sections 114, 109 and 120B of IPC were also added in the charge sheet. The said FIR listed ten individuals as being accused for committing offences under the above said sections.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that Accused No. 1 - Davood Hakim, who had an enmity with CW-2 one Badrul Muneer, hatched a conspiracy with all other accused to eliminate CW-2. Pursuant to this common objective, Accused No. 2 to 10, came on a bike and car, attacked CWs. 1(the Appellant), 2 (Badrul Muneer) and 3 (Hiyaz), with soda bottle and stones, and subsequently murdered the deceased - Abdul Lathif. The injured witnesses, the deceased and the appellant herein (complainant) are relatives. Badrul Muneer (CW-2) being the son-in-law of the deceased - Abdul Latif. The detailed factual matrix is as follows.

5. On 05.06.20 at around 4.00 P.M. to 4.05 P.M. as the Appellant along with other two C.Ws and deceased, was returning from HDFC Bank, Mulki Branch, when Accused No. 2 to 10 intercepted the car of CW-2, Badrul Muneer. While Accused No. 2 and 3, started abusing Badrul Muneer and and thereafter assaulted him and his son Hiyaz (CW- 3) with a knife and wooden club, Accused No. 4 and 7 too joined in, and assaulted Badrul Muneer with a soda bottle and concrete stone respectively.

6. Upon seeing his son-in-law Badrul Muneer being brutally assaulted, the deceased- Abdul Lathif intervened. However, as the deceased intervened, Accused No. 6, Mohammed Bhava (Respondent No. 1 herein, in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 27 of 2022) pushed him. The said Accused No. 6 further stated that this was not the only thing and that he would have more. Resultantly, all other accused (including Musthafa, Accused No. 8 i.e. Respondent No. 1, in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2022) chased the deceased and assaulted him with their deadly weapons, as he fell down near the entrance of the bank, resulting in his death.

7. Subsequent to this incident, Accused No. 8 (Respondent No. 1, in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 1242 of 2022), filed a regular bail application which was rejected by the sessions court. Eventually investigation was also completed and a charge sheet was filed against all accused on the basis of witness statements, recovered articles, medical opinion, and FSL report.

8. Thereafter, Accused No. 6 (Respondent No. 1 herein, in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 27 of 2022) filed an anticipatory bail application before the sessions court, which was also rejected vide judgment dated 14.10.2020.

9. Aggrieved, both the Accused No. 6 and 8, preferred applications before the High Court which were allowed vide impugned judgments and orders dated 08.02.2021 and 19.10.2020, in Criminal Petition No. 6052/2020 and Criminal Petition No. 3902/2020 respectively.

10. Vide impugned judgments, the High Court observed that since other co-accused were also granted bail therefore relief sought by the Accused Respondents No. 1 herein, in the two petitions could be granted.

11. However,