Murder and Conspiracy in Rural Rajasthan: Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.

The present case concerns an appeal filed by Mahipal, the appellant, against the judgment of the High Court of Rajasthan, which granted bail to the respondents, Rajesh Kumar and others, in a case involving the murder of Akhilesh. The appeal arose from the High Court’s decision to enlarge the respondents on bail, despite the gravity of the offence, which involved a violent altercation leading to the death of the deceased. This case deals with the examination of the High Court’s exercise of discretion in granting bail and whether such decisions should be interfered with by the Supreme Court.

Key Facts of the Case:

• The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by Mahipal on December 3, 2018, stating that his nephew, Akhilesh, had visited town for his marriage. On December 2, 2018, Akhilesh and his friend Aashish were involved in a quarrel with two of the accused, Vijay and Anil. A group of five to six boys, armed with rods, then assaulted the deceased. After the assault, the deceased tried to flee on his motorcycle, but the accused followed him and continued beating him, leading to his death from injuries sustained in the attack.
• The post-mortem report noted twenty-seven ante-mortem injuries, with seven injuries on the head, leading the medical board to conclude that the cause of death was coma due to the head injuries. The accused were charged with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• After the arrest of the first respondent, Rajesh Kumar, the appellant sought to prevent the grant of bail. However, the High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to all accused persons, which led to the current appeal by the appellant before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner and Respondent Arguments:

Petitioner (Mahipal): The petitioner argued that the respondents were involved in a gruesome murder and that the High Court erred in granting bail. The petitioner pointed out the serious nature of the crime, the multiple injuries on the deceased, and the fact that the respondents had been involved in a premeditated attack. The petitioner also highlighted that the post-mortem report and the recovery of crucial evidence, such as the deceased’s mobile phone from one of the accused, pointed to their involvement in the crime.

Respondent (Rajesh Kumar & Ors.): The respondents contended that the incident was not a planned murder, but rather an altercation in which the deceased was the aggressor. They argued that the death resulted from an accident after the deceased fell off his bike, and that the injuries sustained were not fatal. The respondents maintained that there was no prima facie case to deny bail, and that the case was based on false allegations.

Important Judge Arguments:

Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud: Justice Chandrachud noted that the Court was tasked with assessing whether the High Court had properly exercised its discretion in granting bail. He emphasized that bail is a discretionary order, and while the Court should respect the High Court’s decision, the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment, and the prima facie involvement of the accused must be considered. The Court found that there were sufficient grounds for interference with the High Court’s bail order, particularly in light of the seriousness of the crime.

Justice Hrishikesh Roy: Justice Roy concurred with the findings of Justice Chandrachud. He highlighted that the High Court’s order lacked a detailed reasoning process and merely relied on the facts and circumstances without addressing the seriousness of the crime or the potential risk of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction or tampering with evidence. Justice Roy emphasized that a reasoned order is essential to ensure transparency and adherence to judicial principles when granting or denying bail.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 302 of IPC (Murder): This section applies to the murder of the deceased, where the respondents were charged with premeditated killing based on the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.
• Section 147 of IPC (Punishment for Rioting): The respondents were charged under this section for being part of a group involved in violent rioting, leading to the death of the deceased.
• Section 149 of IPC (Unlawful Assembly): This provision was invoked to charge the accused with participating in an unlawful assembly that had a common intention to commit a violent act against the deceased.
• Section 439 of CrPC (Grant of Bail): The main issue in this case was the exercise of discretion under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for granting bail, with the Supreme Court examining whether the High Court’s decision was reasonable.

Final Judgment:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order granting bail to the respondents. The Court emphasized that the nature of the crime, the serious injuries sustained by the deceased, and the potential risk of the accused obstructing the trial justified the cancellation of bail. The Court also noted that the High Court had failed to provide a reasoned judgment for granting bail, which is a requirement under judicial principles. The respondents were ordered to be taken into custody immediately.

Conclusion:

This judgment underscores the importance of a reasoned approach when granting or denying bail in serious criminal cases. It also highlights the Court’s role in ensuring that decisions affecting an individual’s liberty are made with due consideration of all relevant factors, including the severity of the crime and the potential for hindering the course of justice.

Petitioner Name: Mahipal.
Respondent Name: Rajesh Kumar & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 05-12-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mahipal vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 05-12-2019.pdf