IMPORTANT POINT
Court granting bail cannot obviate its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated 17.08.2021 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 13149 of 2021 by which the High Court has released the respondent No. 2 - original accused on bail in connection with alleged Case No. 328 of 2020-Vaishali Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the original informant-younger brother of the deceased has preferred the present appeal.

2. That the appellant herein-informant-younger brother of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R. with the Vaishali, Bihar Police Station against all the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. As per the case of the prosecution, on fateful date of occurrence accused Ramawatar Bhagat (respondent No. 2 herein) and other accused named in F.I.R. having armed with lethal weapons came to the Bamboo Clumps of the informant and they started cutting the bamboos. So, his brother - Shardanand Bhagat went to forbade them. On this accused Ramawatar Bhagat ordered to kill Shardanand Bhagat and then Shardanand Bhagat started fleeing away but he was chased and surrounded by all the accused persons. After that the co-accused Manish Kumar fired upon him from his rifle due to which Shardanand Bhagat got injured and fell down and when the informant went to save him, the co-accused namely Rambabu Kumar fired twice upon the informant due to which the informant also got injured to some extent. After that all the accused persons brutally assaulted the informant by means of Lathi, Danda. When co-villagers started assembling there then all the accused persons fled away. Later on, both the injured persons were brought to the Sadar Hajipur and thereafter they were referred to P.M.C.H. for treatment.

2.1 That during the course of treatment, Shardanand Bhagat succumbed to the bullet injury. So, later on, Section 302 IPC was added. All the accused persons were arrested including the respondent No. 2 - Ramawatar Bhagat. The bail application filed by the respondent No. 2 - Ramawatar Bhagat came to be rejected by the Sessions Court by giving cogent reasons and by observing that the respondent No. 2 - accused Ramawatar Bhagat and other accused persons named in the F.I.R. formed an unlawful assembly and thereafter killed Shardanand Bhagat. The Sessions Court also observed that so far as respondent No. 2 - Ramawatar Bhagat is concerned, he has actively participated in such heinous offence and therefore having considered the gravity of the case, no case for bail is made out. That thereafter the respondent No. 2 approached the High Court by way of present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and by the impugned judgment and order without assigning any cogent reasons and without even considering the gravity and nature of the offence committed in which one of the persons got killed and after narrating the submissions made on behalf of the accused and the State and after observing “Considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.”

2.2 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No. 2 on bail, the original informant - younger brother of the deceased, who himself is an injured eye witness has preferred the present appeal.

3. Shri Rituraj Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has