Jadunath Singh vs. Arvind Kumar (Supreme Court, 19 April 2024)
Background
This case arose from a brutal murder in Village Bhogaon, Uttar Pradesh. The Sessions Court convicted five accused—Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar @ Chandu, Rishi Kumar, Pramod Kashyap, and Adesh Kumar—under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them to life imprisonment. Two other accused were acquitted. All five convicted individuals filed criminal appeals before the Allahabad High Court and sought bail, primarily on the ground of having served over ten years in custody. Notably, two co-accused had already been granted bail by a coordinate bench.
High Court Proceedings
On 8 February 2023, the High Court granted bail to Arvind Kumar, Chandra Kumar, and Rishi Kumar, requiring a personal bond of ₹50,000 and two sureties. The complainant, Jadunath Singh, challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that granting bail was inappropriate, particularly for Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, who had subsequently murdered a police constable while in judicial custody during the pendency of their appeals.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court, led by Justice Vikram Nath, scrutinized the High Court’s approach to granting bail. The Court emphasized that while prolonged incarceration during appeal can be a valid ground for bail, it cannot be the sole consideration, especially when the accused have demonstrated dangerous conduct after conviction. The Court noted:
Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar committed a grave offence—murdering a police constable—while in judicial custody, which reflected on their propensity for violence and disregard for the law.
Granting bail to such individuals posed a serious threat to public safety and undermined the justice system.
The High Court failed to consider the subsequent criminal acts of these accused, which was a material factor that should have weighed heavily against granting them bail.
Judgment and Outcome
The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, directing that they be taken back into custody immediately. However, it upheld the bail granted to Arvind Kumar, as there was no evidence of his involvement in subsequent criminal conduct. The Court reaffirmed that judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously, considering both the rights of the accused and the interests of society.
Significance
This judgment underscores the principle that bail can be revoked if post-conviction conduct demonstrates a threat to public order or the administration of justice. It also clarifies that the seriousness of subsequent offences must be factored into bail decisions, even if the accused have spent significant time in custody.
Citation: Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Ors., [2024] 4 Supreme 43; 2024 INSC 325, Supreme Court of India, Judgment dated 19 April 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments