The Supreme Court has held that in cases where an offence is alleged to have been committed by members of an unlawful assembly with a common object, the principle of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the IPC applies. At the bail stage, it is erroneous for a court to require the prosecution to prove the specific overt act or injury attributed to each individual accused. The Court clarified that the collective nature of the act and the common object are the primary considerations, and a detailed dissection of individual roles is a matter for trial.
At the same time, the Apex Court observed that a superior court has the authority to set aside a perverse or unreasoned order granting bail, even if the accused has not misused the liberty of bail. This is distinct from the cancellation of bail for post-bail misconduct. The Apex Court also clarified that interference is justified when the lower court has ignored relevant material, based its decision on extraneous considerations, or failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence and its impact on society.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta emphasised a clear distinction between the cancellation of bail due to misuse of liberty under Section 439(2) of the CrPC and the reversal of a bail order by a superior court on grounds of perversity. The Bench observed that a bail order can be interfered with, if it is based on extraneous considerations, ignores relevant material, or fails to consider the nature and gravity of the offence.
The Bench noted that the High Court treated the pending civil litigation as a ground for granting bail, whereas this dispute could very well have been the motive for the accused to launch the murderous assault. The Bench found the High Court’s approach of requiring the prosecution to specify the individual role of each accused to be erroneous, particularly because the FIR invoked provisions related to unlawful assembly, where each member is vicariously liable for the acts committed in furtherance of the common object.
At the same time, the Bench found the High Court’s reasoning regarding the number of injuries to be irrelevant. The observation that six assailants inflicted only eight injuries was dismissed, especially since the post-mortem report indicated ‘multiple’ injuries, and the Bench pointed out that dissecting whose weapon caused the fatal head injury was not a valid ground for granting bail at that stage.
Similarly, the Bench opined that the time gap between the incident and the victim’s death was deemed a matter for the trial court to evaluate during the appreciation of evidence, not a basis for granting bail. Thus, the Bench concluded that given the multiple injuries and the deep-rooted cerebral damage noted, there was no justifiable reason for the High Court to have granted bail.
Briefly, the case originates from a complaint lodged by the appellant. A pre-existing civil dispute concerning a right of way over agricultural land existed between the complainant’s family and the accused persons, in which the High Court had granted a stay order. On the day of the incident, the complainant’s husband was assaulted by six individuals, including respondent Nos. 1 and 2, with iron rods and sticks.
The complainant, along with her brother-in-law and his wife, witnessed the assault and were also attacked when they attempted to intervene. The FIR specifically alleges that respondent No. 1 was armed with an iron rod and respondent No. 2 with a stick, and that they actively participated in the assault on the deceased. It was further alleged that during the incident, the respondents and another accused uttered threatening and abusive words towards the complainant in the name of her caste.
Following the assault, an FIR was registered for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The victim succumbed to his injuries and passed away, which led to the inclusion of Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court of Bombay, however, granted bail to the respondents.
Appearances:
AOR Dr. R. R. Deshpande, along with Advocates Priyanka Deshpande and Bhagwant Deshpande, for the Appellant
AORs Vatsalya Vigya and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, along with Advocate Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, for the Respondent
