Prabhakar Tewari vs State of U.P. & Anr.
Supreme Court of India
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 152 OF 2020
(arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9207/2019)
Facts of the Case
On 7th February 2019, at around 4:00 p.m., Purushottam Dutt Tiwari was shot dead while returning home on a motorcycle after attending court. The incident occurred near Warisganj Railway Station (Halt) on National Highway in Uttar Pradesh.
His son, Prabhakar Tewari (the appellant), lodged an FIR at Police Station Jagadishpur the same day. In the FIR and his statement recorded later that evening, Prabhakar named five persons as direct assailants who intercepted the motorcycle and fired multiple gunshots at the victim.
- Vikram Singh @ Vikki was named in the FIR as the person who “committed the incident.” In a subsequent statement, Prabhakar alleged that Vikram Singh had conspired to commit the murder.
- Malkhan Singh was specifically named as one of the five persons who intercepted the motorcycle and fired at the deceased.
Other witnesses, including Rahul Tiwari, Shubham Tiwari, Mahipam Mishra, and Narendra Dev Upadhyay, later gave statements under Section 161 CrPC supporting the involvement of the accused. Narendra Dev Upadhyay’s statement (recorded after about 52 days) mentioned overhearing Vikram Singh planning the murder with accomplices near National Highway 56 Flyover.
Both accused were arrested in March 2019 (Vikram Singh on 19.03.2019 and Malkhan Singh on 12.03.2019). They had been in custody for several months when they applied for bail.
The case was registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 34, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Vikram Singh had multiple other criminal cases pending against him at the same police station, while Malkhan Singh had no prior criminal history.
The Allahabad High Court, vide orders dated 11th September 2019, granted bail to both accused after noting the submissions of the parties and the absence of recovery from them, the delay in recording some witness statements, and the fact that the accused were not flight risks or likely to tamper with evidence.
Prabhakar Tewari challenged both bail orders before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petitions, which were converted into Criminal Appeal Nos. 152 of 2020 and 153 of 2020.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- Whether the High Court committed any error or improper exercise of discretion while granting bail to the accused persons in a serious case of murder involving alleged conspiracy?
- Whether the presence of multiple criminal cases against one accused, the gravity of the offence, and witness statements were sufficient grounds to cancel the bail granted by the High Court?
- What is the scope of interference by the Supreme Court in an order granting bail by the High Court?
Analysis (Grounds from Appellant and Respondents)
Appellant’s Contentions (Prabhakar Tewari – Informant’s Son)
- The accused were directly named in the FIR on the day of the incident itself.
- Vikram Singh was specifically implicated in conspiracy through the statements of the informant and independent witness Narendra Dev Upadhyay.
- Malkhan Singh was named as one of the five persons who physically intercepted the motorcycle and fired at the deceased.
- Multiple other witness statements (Rahul Tiwari, Shubham Tiwari, Mahipam Mishra) corroborated the involvement of both accused.
- Vikram Singh had a long criminal history with at least five other cases at the same police station.
- The offence was grave (murder with conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC), and granting bail in such cases would undermine justice.
- The High Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and the seriousness of the allegations.
The State of Uttar Pradesh supported the appellant’s stand.
Respondents’ (Accused) Contentions
- The accused were falsely implicated.
- No recovery of weapons or incriminating material was made from either accused.
- The statement of key witness Narendra Dev Upadhyay was recorded after a significant delay of 52 days, making it unreliable.
- In the FIR and most Section 161 statements, Vikram Singh was not shown to be present at the actual spot of assault or participating in the firing.
- No specific overt act was attributed to Malkhan Singh beyond general allegations.
- Both accused had been in custody for several months; there was no possibility of them fleeing or tampering with witnesses.
- Vikram Singh’s criminal history was duly explained; Malkhan Singh had no criminal antecedents.
- The High Court had exercised its discretion after considering all relevant factors and there was no ground for interference.
Senior Counsel Mr. C.A. Sundram appeared for the accused and strongly argued the delay in witness statements and lack of direct participation by Vikram Singh at the scene.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court (Bench comprising Justices Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose) referred to the principles laid down in Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar @ Polia (2019) regarding the limited scope of interference in bail matters.
The Court held that an appellate court should interfere with a bail order only if:
- There is non-application of mind by the court granting bail, or
- The reasons for granting bail are not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record.
In this case:
- The High Court had recorded the submissions of both sides and exercised its discretion after considering relevant materials.
- Mere gravity of the offence or pendency of other cases against the accused cannot by themselves be grounds to deny bail.
- No ex-facie error or impropriety was found in the High Court’s orders.
- The materials on record did not justify cancellation of bail.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while the offence is serious, the parameters for interfering with bail were not satisfied. Hence, the discretion exercised by the High Court did not warrant interference.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court of India, on 24th January 2020, dismissed both Criminal Appeals (No. 152 of 2020 and No. 153 of 2020).
The orders passed by the Allahabad High Court on 11th September 2019 granting bail to Vikram Singh @ Vikki and Malkhan Singh were upheld and sustained.
The appeals filed by Prabhakar Tewari were accordingly dismissed.
Key Takeaway: This judgment reinforces that criminal antecedents or the seriousness of the offence alone are not sufficient to cancel bail if the High Court has properly exercised its discretion based on the facts and materials before it. The scope of interference by higher courts in bail matters remains limited unless clear perversity or non-application of mind is demonstrated.
This judgment continues to be cited on the parameters for granting or cancelling bail in serious criminal cases.
Source: https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/34754/34754_2019_15_1502_19742_Judgement_24-Jan-2020.pdf