“Supreme Court Revokes Bail: Incarceration Duration Not Sole Basis When Accused Involved in Further Offenses”
Case title: Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Anr.
Case no.: Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(CRL.) Nos. 7961-7963 of 2023)
Dated on: 19th April 2024
Quorum: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Kumar
FACTS OF THE CASE
- The case revolves around an incident on February 11, 2011, in Village Bhogaon, where the appellant, Jadunath Singh, filed a written report stating that the accused, Arvind Kumar, had illegally occupied a plot.
- On the same day, armed with firearms, the accused, along with others, opened fire on Jadunath Singh and his companions, resulting in the death of two individuals and injury to another.
- The accused were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B.
- In another case, on January 31, 2013, Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, while in custody, requested Constable Ajay Kumar to accompany them for a nature break. However, they ambushed Ajay Kumar, fatally shooting him as they left the court premises. Subsequently, they dumped his body outside a residence. This led to the registration of FIR Case Crime No. 60 of 2013 under Section 302 IPC, with eight individuals, including Rishi Kumar and Chandra Kumar, implicated in a conspiracy to murder Ajay Kumar. Both accused fled but were apprehended by the Special Task Force (STF) in Maharashtra, where they also engaged in gunfire with the police, prompting the filing of a separate FIR Case Crime No. 54 of 2013.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
On behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the accused were dangerous criminals, having committed multiple murders including that of a police constable, and their release would endanger the appellant and his family.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents sought bail primarily based on their prolonged incarceration of more than 10 years and the fact that two co-accused had been granted bail earlier.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Sections 147 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Sections 148 of IPC, whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Sections 149 of IPC, every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
Sections 120B of IPC, punishment of criminal conspiracy.
Sections 302 of IPC, whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.
ISSUE –
- Whether the respondents, despite their lengthy incarceration, should be granted bail considering their involvement in multiple serious offenses, including murder.
- Whether the High Court adequately considered all relevant factors before granting bail.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had granted bail primarily based on the duration of incarceration and the bail granted to two co-accused. However, crucial facts regarding the respondents’ involvement in the murder of a police constable and their subsequent resistance to arrest were not presented before the High Court.
The Court emphasized that the respondents’ conduct in a separate case warranted denial of bail despite their prolonged incarceration in the present case. While Arvind Kumar was not implicated in the murder case of the police constable, bail for the other two respondents was revoked.
The appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar were allowed, and the impugned order granting them bail was set aside. They were given two weeks to surrender, failing which coercive measures would be taken.
This judgment underscores the importance of considering all relevant facts and circumstances before granting bail, particularly in cases involving serious offenses and individuals with a history of criminal conduct.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Chiraag K A