AUTHOR
Merline Mathew
Merline Mathew is a final year B.A, LL.B.(Hons) student of Bharata Mata School Of Legal Studies Choondy, Aluva.She is currently LJRF Voice Editor Trainee.
INTRODUCTION
The act of arrest deprives a man of his liberty which is sanctified as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It is bail which secures him free with the promise to take trial at a future date and to undergo punishment if found guilty. Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with Anticipatory Bail which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest. The legislature has conferred very wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory bail. The Law Commission has also expressed the view that power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised in very exceptional cases[i].The Supreme Court has time and again laid down the various principles Courts must adhere to before granting Anticipatory bail. The latest one being the judgment of the Supreme Court in Prashant Singh Rajput vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr[ii].
The Supreme Court on October 8, 2021 set aside an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granting anticipatory bail to two accused persons in connection with a crime registered under Sections 302, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathnafound that the parameters for grant of bail were not applied correctly by the High Court and important considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offence as well as specific allegations against the accused were ignored while passing the order[iii].
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The appellant/ complainant before the Supreme Court was the deceased person’s brother-in-law. It was alleged that four persons, including the two respondents before the Supreme Court (Jogendra Singh and Suryabhan Singh), had arrived at the crime scene in a jeep and shot the deceased (Vikas Singh) leading to his death owing to a previous rivalry. Apprehending arrest, they filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Trial Court which was rejected and thereafter approached the High Court.The Single Judge of the Jabalpur bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail. The prime consideration for the grant of anticipatory bail was the report submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173 of the CrPC which stated that the two respondent-accused were not present at the crime scene.
And thus, impugned by the order granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons by the High Court, the complainant preferred an appeal to Supreme Court which came for consideration before the bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and BV Nagarathnaas Prashant Singh Rajput vs The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr[iv].
LEGAL ISSUE INVOLVED:
The principle legal issue for consideration of the Apex Court is whether the parameters for the grant of anticipatory bail were correctly formulated and applied by the Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in allowing the applications for anticipatory bail.
DECISION
The Apex court held that the order granting anticipatory bail ignored material aspects, including the nature and gravity of the offence, and the specific allegations against accused persons[v]. Consequently, the impugned judgments of the Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh granting anticipatory bail to the second respondents were set aside as the parameters for grant of bail were not applied correctly by the High Court and the nature and gravity of the offence as well as specific allegations against the accused were ignored while passing the order.
ANALYSIS
The Apex Court noted that the FIR and the statements under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC indicate a specific role to the two accused persons. The court further went on to observe that the High Court has placed reliance upon the report submitted under Section 173 of the CrPC to hold that accused persons were not present when the incident occurred. However, the High Court failed to address the clear deficiencies in the course of the investigation which have been highlighted in the order of the JMFC dated 13 February 2021 and the order dated 24 March 2021 of the trial Court[vi]. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ignored these material aspects while granting bail to the two accused persons. Hence the Supreme Court has rightly set aside the impugned judgment that ignored the basic parameters a judge must keep in mind while granting anticipatory bail.
CONCLUSION
In the present case Apex Court cancelled anticipatory bail granted ignoring material aspects including the nature and gravity of the offence. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present case is a guidance for judges in applying judicial discretion while granting anticipatory bail. This will ensure a more judicious exercise of this extraordinary remedy by the lower courts.
ENDNOTES
[i] Law Commission of India, some questions under the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970, Report No.48, (July 1972), available at https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/1-50/Report48.pdf(Last visited on October 22, 2021)
[ii] LL 2021 SC 566
[iii]Shagun Suryam, Gravity of offence, specific allegations ignored by High Court: Supreme Court cancels anticipatory bail, Bar and Bench (Oct 09, 2021, 2:31 pm),
https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/gravity-of-offence-specific-allegations-ignored-by-high-court-supreme-court-cancels-anticipatory-bail(Last visited on October14, 2021)
[iv] LL 2021 SC 566
[v] Supra note iii, Part D ¶ 30
[vi] Shruti Kakkar, Anticipatory Bail Granted Ignoring Material Aspects, Nature & Gravity Of Offence Liable To Be Cancelled: Supreme Court , Live Law (Oct 11 2021 10:45 AM ), https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-cancel-anticipatory-bail-ignoring-material-aspects-nature-gravity-of-offence-prashant-singh-rajput-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-ll2021-sc-566-183543 (Last visited on October 14, 2021)
