Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Convicts After Considering Subsequent Criminal Conduct

In Jadunath Singh v. Arvind Kumar & Anr. Etc. (2024 Latest Caselaw 258 SC), the Supreme Court held that while prolonged incarceration is a relevant consideration for grant of bail after conviction, courts must also examine the subsequent conduct of the accused and the potential threat they pose to society. The Court cancelled the bail granted to two convicts after finding that the High Court had overlooked their alleged involvement in the murder of a police constable during the pendency of the trial. 

The case arose from a double murder that occurred in 2011 following a dispute over possession of a plot of land. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with firearms, chased the complainant and his companions before fatally shooting two persons and injuring another. The Trial Court convicted five accused under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to life imprisonment. During the pendency of their appeals before the High Court, three of the convicted persons were granted bail primarily on the ground that they had remained in custody for more than ten years and that two co-convicts had already been granted bail. The complainant challenged the grant of bail before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was whether the High Court was justified in granting bail to the convicted persons without considering their subsequent criminal conduct and the seriousness of the allegations against them. 

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to consider material facts while granting bail. The Court observed that:

•Two of the accused, Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar, were facing a separate prosecution for the alleged murder of a police constable while they were in judicial custody. 

•After allegedly killing the police constable, they absconded and were later arrested by the Special Task Force from Maharashtra, where they were also accused of opening fire on the police. 

•These facts were highly relevant while deciding whether they deserved the discretionary relief of bail. 

•The High Court granted bail solely on the basis of long incarceration and parity with two co-convicts without appreciating that the role and subsequent conduct of the other two co-convicts were materially different. 

•The principle of parity could not be applied mechanically where the factual circumstances of the accused were distinguishable. However, the Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the bail granted to Arvind Kumar, as he was not an accused in the subsequent case relating to the murder of the police constable. 

The Supreme Court:

•Dismissed the appeal against Arvind Kumar and allowed his bail to continue. 

•Allowed the appeals against Chandra Kumar and Rishi Kumar. 

•Set aside the High Court's order granting them bail.

•Directed both accused to surrender within two weeks, failing which coercive steps could be taken to secure their custody. 

The judgment reiterates that while prolonged incarceration is an important consideration in deciding applications for suspension of sentence and grant of bail after conviction, it is not the sole factor. Courts must also evaluate the accused's subsequent conduct, criminal antecedents, likelihood of absconding and the potential threat to the administration of justice. The decision also clarifies that the principle of parity cannot be invoked where the accused stand on materially different factual footing.