Wife challenges bail for husband's murder accused. SC says High Court ignored CCTV footage.

The attackers tied him to a factory gate and beat him with pipes. The High Court granted them bail anyway.

Jayaben watched her husband Mukeshbhai being dragged to an iron gate outside a factory in Shapar, Gujarat. Five men arrived shouting abuse. They beat all three of them—Jayaben, her aunt Savitaben, and Mukeshbhai—with pipes and belts. Then they told the two women to leave. When Jayaben returned with relatives, she found her husband unconscious, his body broken. He died at the hospital from multiple injuries.

The Sessions Court refused bail to the accused. But the Gujarat High Court, in two separate orders, let two of them walk free.

The question before the Supreme Court was simple: could a High Court grant bail in a murder case by ignoring eyewitness accounts, CCTV footage, and mobile phone recordings that the police had already collected?

When the scrap collection turned into a murder

On January 1, 2018, Jayaben, her aunt Savitaben, and Mukeshbhai went to collect scrap from open ground outside a factory in Shapar, a town in Gujarat's Rajkot district. Five men arrived and began abusing and beating all three. The attackers tied Mukeshbhai to the factory gate and continued beating him with pipes and belts. Jayaben and Savitaben were ordered to leave. When they returned with relatives, they found Mukeshbhai unconscious and seriously injured. He was taken to the hospital but died from his injuries.

An FIR (a written complaint that starts a police investigation) was registered at Shapar (Veraval) police station. The police investigated and filed a chargesheet against all five accused for murder and offences under the SC/ST Atrocities Act (a law that punishes crimes against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes). The Sessions Court at Gondal rejected bail for all accused on September 18, 2018.

How the High Court saw it differently

The accused appealed to the Gujarat High Court. On February 4, 2019, the High Court granted bail to Tejas Kanubhai Zala. On April 5, 2019, it granted bail to Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya.

The High Court's orders were brief. They did not discuss the eyewitness testimony, the CCTV footage from the factory, or the mobile phone recordings that the police had collected during investigation. They did not mention the post-mortem findings that established the cause of death. They did not consider the recovery of weapons used in the attack.

Jayaben, the victim's wife, approached the Supreme Court. She argued that the High Court had passed bail orders in a casual manner, ignoring the gravity of the offences and the strong evidence against the accused.

What the Supreme Court found in the record

The Supreme Court bench—Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna—examined the chargesheet and the evidence. They found that the investigation had collected:

• Eyewitness identification through TIP (test identification parade, where witnesses identify suspects before a magistrate)
• CCTV footage from the factory showing the attack
• Mobile phone recordings
• Recovery of weapons used in the assault
• Post-mortem findings establishing that death was caused by multiple injuries

The bench noted that the High Court had not considered any of this evidence while granting bail. The orders were passed without applying the mind that the law requires when a person is charged with murder (Section 302 IPC, which carries a maximum punishment of death or life imprisonment).

'The High Court failed to consider the gravity of offences'

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to consider the gravity of the offences and the evidence including eyewitness identification through TIP, CCTV footage, recovery of weapons, and post-mortem findings establishing the cause of death. The Court observed that the bail orders were passed in a casual manner, ignoring the strong evidence on record.

"While considering bail in serious offences such as murder, the gravity of the offences alleged and the evidence collected during investigation forming part of the chargesheet must be duly considered by the court," the Supreme Court ruled. "Failure to do so renders the bail order unsustainable."

Why the State's silence mattered

The Supreme Court also noted something troubling: the State of Gujarat had not challenged the High Court's bail orders. The only person who appealed was Jayaben, the victim's wife.

The Court observed that in criminal matters, the State is the custodian of the social interest of the community at large. It is the State's duty to take all necessary steps, including challenging bail orders in serious offences. The Court directed that the Director of Prosecution under Section 25A CrPC (the officer responsible for supervising prosecutions) must take prompt decisions in such matters.

When bail cancellation does not need fresh misconduct

The accused argued that their bail should not be cancelled because they had not violated any conditions and had not misused their liberty. The Supreme Court rejected this argument.

It drew a clear distinction between two situations.

First, cancelling bail because the accused violated conditions or tampered with evidence. This requires proof of fresh misconduct.

Second, setting aside a bail order that was legally wrong from the beginning. This does not require any supervening circumstances (new events after bail was granted). If the appellate court finds that the bail order itself is unsustainable—because the lower court ignored the law or the evidence—then the bail must be cancelled regardless of how long the accused has been out or whether they behaved well.

"Cancellation of bail for breach of conditions and quashing/setting aside a wrong order granting bail stand on different footings," the Court held. "Once an appellate court finds that the bail order is unsustainable, the necessary consequences must follow and bail must be cancelled, irrespective of the period elapsed or absence of misuse of liberty."

The Court held that the High Court's orders fell into the second category. They were passed without considering the gravity of the offences and the evidence on record. They were unsustainable. The necessary consequence was cancellation of bail.

The charges the accused faced

The chargesheet against the five accused included a wide range of offences. The most serious was Section 302 IPC (murder), which carries a maximum punishment of death or life imprisonment. The accused were also charged with Section 342 IPC (wrongful confinement), Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to woman), and Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt).

The charges under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, included Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(5)—provisions that punish intentional humiliation and acts of violence against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Additional charges were filed under Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, and Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with unlawful assembly, rioting, common object, and abetment.

What the court ordered

The Supreme Court allowed both appeals on January 10, 2022. It quashed the Gujarat High Court's bail orders. Tejas Kanubhai Zala and Jaysukhbhai Devrajbhai Radadiya were directed to surrender before the concerned jail authority within one week. If they failed to surrender, non-bailable warrants (arrest orders that cannot be cancelled by paying bail money) would be issued against them.

The Court also directed the registry to send a copy of the order to the Principal Chief Secretary and the Secretaries of the Home Department and Legal Department of the State of Gujarat.

THE PLAY: When challenging a bail order that was legally flawed from the start, you do not need to prove that the accused misused their liberty—you only need to show that the court granting bail ignored the gravity of the offence or the evidence on record.

The attackers tied him to a factory gate and beat him with pipes. The Supreme Court sent them back to custody.