Anticipatory Bail Granted Due to Weak Evidence in Assault Case

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Kishore Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Court Name: The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench

Case No.: MCRC No. 26697/2020

Date: 13th August 2020

Key Takeaways

1. Evidentiary Gaps Matter: The court emphasized that when prosecution’s case has significant gaps (no bullet recovery, no gunshot marks, missing veterinary MLC), anticipatory bail can be granted even in serious offences.
2. COVID-19 Considerations: The judgment reflects the Supreme Court’s directive to decongest prisons during the pandemic, which influenced bail decisions during this period.
3. Medical Evidence is Crucial: The absence of incised wounds on the alleged victim and missing medical reports weakened the prosecution’s case substantially.
4. Conditional Bail with COVID Compliance: The court imposed strict conditions requiring compliance with COVID-19 guidelines, making violation grounds for automatic cancellation of bail.

Issue

The central legal question was: Should anticipatory bail be granted to the applicant who is accused of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC), assault (Section 323 IPC), mischief causing damage (Section 429 IPC), and using obscene language (Section 294 IPC), when there are significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence?

Facts

1. The Incident: Kishore Singh (the applicant) was accused in Crime No. 188/2020 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind.
2. The Allegations: According to the prosecution:

• Kishore Singh allegedly fired a gunshot at the complainant
• The complainant sat down, and the bullet allegedly hit the spinal cord of a calf and got stuck in a wall
• He allegedly assaulted Ramdhun with an axe
• He allegedly assaulted Mohar Singh with the handle of an axe

1. The Charges: The case was registered under:

• Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder)
• Section 294 IPC (Obscene acts and songs)
• Section 323 IPC (Voluntarily causing hurt)
• Section 429 IPC (Mischief by killing or maiming animal)

1. Background: The applicant claimed this was a property dispute and the allegations were false.

Arguments

Applicant’s Arguments (Kishore Singh’s Side):

1. False Case: The entire case was fabricated due to a property dispute between the parties.
2. Lack of Evidence: The allegations were not supported by medical evidence.
3. No Flight Risk: There was no possibility of him absconding or tampering with the prosecution’s case.
4. Long Trial: The trial would take a sufficiently long time, so he should be granted anticipatory bail.

State’s Arguments (Prosecution’s Side):

The State opposed the application initially. However, during the hearing, the State’s counsel made some important concessions:

1. No Gunshot Marks: The spot map showed nothing to indicate that any gunshot mark was found on the wall.
2. No Bullet Recovery: There was no document showing that any bullet was recovered from the spot.
3. Missing Veterinary Report: The MLC (Medico-Legal Case) of the calf prepared by the Veterinary doctor was not in the case diary.
4. Minor Injuries: Only an abrasion was found on the right elbow of Ramdhun Singh and a swelling on the right thumb of Mohan (not Mohar as initially mentioned).

Key Legal Precedents

The court relied on a significant Supreme Court precedent:

IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. © No. 1/2020

What the Supreme Court Said:

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of prison overcrowding during the COVID-19 pandemic and directed all States to constitute High Powered Committees to consider releasing prisoners to decongest prisons.

The Supreme Court observed:

“The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a matter of serious concern particularly in the present context of the pandemic of Corona Virus (COVID – 19). Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it has become imperative to ensure that the spread of the Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.”

Directives Given:

Each State/Union Territory was directed to constitute a High Powered Committee comprising:

• Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee
• Principal Secretary (Home/Prison)
• Director General of Prison(s)

Purpose: To determine which class of prisoners could be released on parole or interim bail.

Criteria Suggested: The Committee could consider releasing prisoners:

• Convicted or undertrial for offences with prescribed punishment up to 7 years or less
• Based on nature of offence, number of years sentenced, severity of offence, or any other relevant factor

How It Applied to This Case:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered this Supreme Court directive while evaluating the anticipatory bail application. The court took into account the pandemic situation and the need to prevent unnecessary arrests that would add to prison congestion, especially when the evidence against the accused was weak.

Judgement

The court ALLOWED the application for anticipatory bail. Here’s what the court decided:

Court’s Reasoning:

The court considered several factors:

1. Weak Evidence:

• No incised wound was found on Ramdhun Singh’s body (despite allegations of axe assault)
• Nothing in the case diary indicated any gunshot mark on any wall
• No bullet was recovered from the spot
• The MLC of the calf prepared by the Veterinary doctor was absent

1. COVID-19 Context: The court took into account the Supreme Court’s directions regarding prison decongestion during the pandemic.

Bail Conditions:

The applicant was granted anticipatory bail with the following conditions:

1. Appearance: The applicant must appear before the investigating officer on or before 20th August 2020
2. Bond Amount: Personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 (One Lac) with one solvent surety in the like amount
3. COVID-19 Compliance: The applicant must:

• Furnish an undertaking to abide by all instructions issued by Central/State Government or Local Administration for combating COVID-19
• Strictly follow all COVID-19 related instructions

Automatic Cancellation Clause:

The court imposed a strict condition:

“If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody.”

Additional Directions:

1. The applicant must supply a copy of the bail order to the police station having jurisdiction over his place of residence
2. Other conditions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. shall remain the same
3. In case of violation of any condition, the order shall automatically lose its effect

FAQs

Q1: What is anticipatory bail and how is it different from regular bail?

Answer: Anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest bail granted under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). It’s sought when a person apprehends arrest in a cognizable offence. Regular bail, on the other hand, is sought after arrest. In this case, Kishore Singh hadn’t been arrested yet but feared arrest, so he applied for anticipatory bail.

Q2: Why did the court grant bail despite serious charges like attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC)?

Answer: The court found significant gaps in the prosecution’s evidence. The State’s counsel fairly conceded that no gunshot marks were found on the wall, no bullet was recovered, the veterinary MLC was missing, and the injuries found on the alleged victims were minor (just an abrasion and swelling) rather than the serious axe wounds claimed. When evidence is weak, courts can grant bail even in serious cases.

Q3: What role did COVID-19 play in this decision?

Answer: The court specifically considered the Supreme Court’s directive in IN RE: CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS which emphasized decongesting prisons during the pandemic. This was a relevant factor in granting anticipatory bail, especially when the evidence was already weak. The court also imposed strict COVID-19 compliance conditions on the bail.

Q4: What happens if the applicant violates COVID-19 guidelines?

Answer: The bail order contains an automatic cancellation clause. If the applicant violates any COVID-19 instructions (general or specific) issued by the Central Government, State Government, or Local Administration, the bail order will automatically lose its effect, and police can immediately arrest him without any further court order.

Q5: What were the key evidentiary gaps that helped the applicant?

Answer: The main gaps were:

• No gunshot marks found on any wall (despite claim that bullet got stuck in wall)
• No bullet recovered from the spot
• No incised wound on Ramdhun Singh (despite allegation of axe assault)
• Missing veterinary MLC for the injured calf
• Only minor injuries (abrasion and swelling) found on the alleged victims

Q6: Can the applicant be arrested after getting anticipatory bail?

Answer: Generally, no - as long as he complies with all the bail conditions. However, if he violates any condition (especially the COVID-19 compliance requirements), the bail automatically gets cancelled and he can be arrested immediately. Also, if new evidence emerges or he doesn’t cooperate with the investigation, the prosecution can approach the court to cancel the bail.

Q7: What is the significance of the State’s counsel’s “fair concession”?

Answer: The judgment notes that the State’s counsel “fairly conceded” that there were no gunshot marks on the wall and no bullet recovery. This is significant because when the prosecution itself acknowledges weaknesses in its case, it strengthens the applicant’s position for bail. It shows professional integrity and helps the court make an informed decision.

Q8: What does Section 438 of Cr.P.C. provide?

Answer: Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows a person to seek anticipatory bail when they have reason to believe they may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The court can grant such bail with conditions it deems fit. In this case, the court imposed conditions including appearance before the investigating officer, furnishing of bond, and COVID-19 compliance.

Q9: Why was the veterinary MLC important?

Answer: The prosecution alleged that the bullet hit the spinal cord of a calf. The veterinary MLC (Medico-Legal Certificate) would have documented the calf’s injuries and could have provided crucial evidence about whether a gunshot injury actually occurred. Its absence from the case diary weakened the prosecution’s case significantly.

Q10: What does this case mean for future bail applications during emergencies?

Answer: This case demonstrates that courts consider extraordinary circumstances (like pandemics) when deciding bail applications, especially when combined with weak evidence. However, it doesn’t mean automatic bail - the court still carefully examined the evidence and imposed strict conditions. Each case is decided on its own merits, but emergency situations can be a relevant factor in the court’s discretion.

Shri Deependra Singh Kushwah, learned counsel for the applicant.

Shri Anup Nigam, learned Panel Lawyer for the State. Case diary is available.

Heard finally, through video conferencing.

This first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime

No.188/2020 registered at Police Station Gormi, District Bhind for

offence under Sections 307, 294, 323 and 429 of IPC.

It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that because

of property dispute, a false report has been lodged against him.

According to the prosecution case, the applicant fired a gun shot on

the complainant who sat down as a result of which the bullet hit the

spinal cord of the calf and ultimately got stuck in the wall. It is

further alleged that the applicant assaulted Ramdhun by means of

an axe as well as Mohar Singh by the handle of the axe. It is further

submitted that these allegations are false and are not supported by

medical evidence. The trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.

There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the

prosecution case.

Per contra, the application is opposed by the counsel for the

State. However, after going through the spot map, it was fairly

conceded by the counsel for the State that there is nothing to

indicate that any gun shot mark was found on the wall. Further

there is no document to show that any bullet was recovered from

the spot. The MLC of calf prepared by Veterinary doctor is not in

the case diary and further an abrasion was found on right elbow of

Ramdhun Singh and a swelling was found on right thumb of

Mohan.

Considered the submissions made by the Counsel for the

parties through video conferencing.

The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the

case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN

PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all

the States to constitute a High Powered Committee to consider the

release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons. The Supreme

Court has observed as under :

“The issue of overcrowding of prisons is a

matter of serious concern particularly in the

present context of the pandemic of Corona

Virus (COVID – 19).

Having regard to the provisions of Article 21 of

the Constitution of India, it has become

imperative to ensure that the spread of the

Corona Virus within the prisons is controlled.

We direct that each State/Union Territory shall

constitute a High Powered Committee

comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal

Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary

(Home/Prison) by whatever designation is

known as, (ii) Director General of Prison(s), to

determine which class of prisoners can be

released on parole or an interim bail for such

period as may be thought appropriate. For

instance, the State/Union Territory could

consider the release of prisoners who have been

convicted or are undertrial for offences for

which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or

less, with or without fine and the prisoner has

been convicted for a lesser number of years

than the maximum.

It is made clear that we leave it open for the

High Powered Committee to determine the

category of prisoners who should be released as

aforesaid, depending upon the nature of

offence, the number of years to which he or she

has been sentenced or the severity of the

offence with which he/she is charged with and

is facing trial or any other relevant factor,

which the Committee may consider

appropriate.”

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well

as considering the fact that no incised wound was found from the

body of Ramdhun Singh as well as there is nothing in the case diary

to indicate that any gun shot mark was found on any wall or any

bullet was recovered from the spot as well as in absence of MLC of

calf prepared by Veterinary doctor, the application for grant of

anticipatory bail is allowed. It is directed that if the applicant

appears before the investigating officer on or before 20/08/2020 and

furnish his personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 ( Rs. One

Lac) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction

of the investigation officer, then he shall be released on bail. The

applicant shall also furnish an undertaking that they will abide by

all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State

Govt. or Local Administration (General or Specific) from time to

time for combating Covid-19.

The applicant is directed to strictly follow all the

instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State

Govt. or Local Administration for combating Covid19. If it is

found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions

(whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State

Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall

automatically lose its effect, and the Local

Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in

custody. The applicant is further directed to supply a copy of

this bail order to the police station having jurisdiction over his

place of residence.

The other conditions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. shall remain

the same.

In case of violation of any of the condition(s) mentioned

above, this order shall automatically lose its effect.

With aforesaid observations, this application is allowed.

(G.S.Ahluwalia)

Pj'S/- Judge