Section 149 IPC| In Unlawful Assembly, Individual Role Need Not Be Isolated At Bail Stage: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that where offences are alleged to have been committed by members of an unlawful assembly, the prosecution is not required at the stage of bail to pinpoint the specific injury caused by each accused, as every member is equally responsible for acts done in furtherance of the common object.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, while setting aside a High Court order granting bail to two accused in a murder case arising out of a group assault, held that the High Court erred in insisting upon identification of the specific injury attributed to each accused despite the invocation of Sections 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the IPC.
The Court observed that in cases involving an unlawful assembly, once the common object is established, each member of the assembly is equally liable for the acts committed in furtherance of that object, and bail cannot be granted on the premise that the prosecution failed to specify the individual blow delivered by each accused.
The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the original complainant, challenging an order of the Bombay High Court granting bail to the respondents-accused in connection with offences, including Section 302 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, allowing the appeal and cancelling the bail granted by the High Court, observed that “the approach adopted by the High Court at the stage of considering bail recording that the prosecution was required to indicate the individual role of the accused in the incident, and that failure to do so, entitled the respondents-accused to bail, is erroneous on the face of record”.
The Bench elaborated that “in a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object”.
Background
The complainant alleged that a long-standing civil dispute over the right of way over agricultural land existed between her family and the accused. On the date of the incident, her husband was allegedly assaulted by six persons armed with iron rods and sticks. The complainant and her relatives, who reached the spot, claimed that the deceased was beaten mercilessly and subjected to caste-based abuses.
The FIR invoked multiple offences, including Sections 302, 143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC along with provisions of the SC/ST Act. The deceased later succumbed to injuries sustained in the assault.
The High Court granted bail to the respondents-accused, inter alia, observing that it was not clear which accused caused which injury, that there was a gap between the date of the incident and the date of death, and that civil litigation between the parties could have led to false implication.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court clarified at the outset that there is a distinction between cancellation of bail on account of misuse of liberty and interference with an order granting bail where the order is found to be perverse, based on extraneous considerations, or ignoring relevant material. It held that the present case fell in the latter category.
Examining the FIR and medical material, the Court noted that there were clear allegations that the accused formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting and killing the deceased, and that multiple injuries were inflicted upon him.
In this backdrop, the Court observed: “In a case where the offence is committed by an unlawful assembly, each member of the assembly is equally responsible for the acts committed in furtherance of the unlawful object, ...the common object of the assembly being to assault the deceased on account of the pending civil litigation, each member of the unlawful assembly was thus equally liable and responsible for the offending acts.”
The Bench held that the High Court’s approach in insisting upon specification of which weapon caused which injury was legally flawed, particularly when Sections relating to unlawful assembly and common object had been invoked. It further noted that the observation that the six accused inflicted only eight injuries was irrelevant and could not justify the grant of bail.
The Court also rejected the reasoning that pendency of civil litigation favoured the grant of bail, observing that such a dispute could equally constitute the motive for the assault. The issue regarding the nexus between injuries and death, as well as intention and knowledge, was held to be a matter for trial and not determinative at the stage of bail.
Considering the gravity of allegations, multiplicity of injuries, and the nature of the offences, including those under the SC/ST Act, the Court concluded that the High Court’s order suffered from serious infirmities warranting interference.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order granting bail and directed the respondents-accused to surrender before the trial court within four weeks, failing which coercive steps were to be taken. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the issue of cancellation of bail and would not influence the trial, and granted liberty to the accused to renew their prayer for bail.
Cause Title: Shobha Namdev Sonavane v. Samadhan Bajirao Sonvane & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 181)
Appearances
Petitioner: Priyanka Deshpande, Adv.; R. R. Deshpande, AOR; Bhagwant Deshpande, Adv.
Respondents: Pranjal Chapalgaonkar, Adv.; Vatsalya Vigya, AOR; Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR