Supreme Court calls for stricter approach in granting bail to police in custodial death cases

The Supreme Court recently observed that a stricter approach is required to decide on the question of bail when the person seeking bail is a police official who is accused in a custodial death case [Ajay Kumar Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors]..A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and PV Sanjay Kumar explained that such a stricter view is required partly because a police officer may wield more influence than an ordinary person. "In cases of this nature, having regard to the overall influence a member of a police force may wield in connection with a case against them pertaining to custodial death, a stricter view is to be taken on the question of granting bail," the Court said. .The Court added that custodial deaths were serious offences, while cancelling the bail earlier granted to a police constable accused of being involved in causing such a death in 2021. "It is a fact that, in ordinary circumstances, we ought not to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to invalidate an order granting bail to an accused. But this criteria, while dealing with the question of granting bail, would not apply in a case of custodial death, where police officials are arraigned as accused. Such alleged offences are of grave and serious nature," the Court said. .By way of background, nineteen police officials were accused of being involved in causing the death of a man arrested on suspicions that he committed robbery in February 2021. Among those accused was a police constable who was working as a substitute driver on the day when the deceased man died in police custody. The Allahabad High Court allowed the release of this police constable on bail in 2023, after the chargesheet in the criminal case was filed. This decision was challenged by the deceased man's brother (complainant/ appellant) before the Supreme Court. The Court was informed that the matter was being probed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which supported the appellant's plea to cancel the bail granted to the constable. The High Court had granted bail to the constable on the ground that he was only working as a temporary substitute driver at the time. However, the Supreme Court noted that, as per the material on record, his role was not confined to just being a driver of a police vehicle."Of course, these factors would have to be independently assessed at the stage of trial on leading of evidence but we are considering them only for the purpose of determining the question of bail," the Court added. .It proceeded to opine that a stricter approach is needed when it came to the grant of bail in this case, considering the influence wielded by police officers and the seriousness of the crime. "The charge is under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant has been enlarged on bail within 1 and ½ years of his detention. The alleged offence is of grave and serious nature and that factor has not been properly considered by the High Court," the Court added. .It, thus, quashed the bail granted to the constable after deeming that it was not a fit case for the High Court to have done so..The appeal was allowed and the accused constable was directed to surrender before the CBI within a month, following which he is to be taken into judicial custody.The Court clarified that nothing has been expressed on the merits of the case..Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave with advocates Anuroop Chakravarti, Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, S Vishnu Sankar, and Athira G Nair appeared for the complainant.Advocates Shaurya Sahay, Shobhit Dwivedi, and Satvik Mishra appeared for the Uttar Pradesh government.Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocate Archana Pathak Dave with advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Ruchi Kohli, Chitrangda Rastarawara, Rajan Kumar Chourasia, and Parantap Singh appeared for the CBI.Senior Advocate Colonel R Balasubramanian with advocate Sachin Sharma appeared for the accused..[Read order]