SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.
Shambhu Debnath – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 961 of 2024)
Decided On : 20-12-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 302, 504 and 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 126(2), 115(2), 103(1), 352 and 3(5)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Anticipatory bail – Grant of – There are specific averments in FIR against all accused persons including respondents herein that all of them had set deceased on fire with intention to kill him – High Court has erred in granting relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner without considering materials available on record including charge-sheet which stated that case has been found true against all accused persons of such a heinous offence of murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting deceased on fire – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal has been preferred by complainant against grant of anticipatory bail to respondents by High Court of Judicature at Patna. Case was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before Trial Court within four weeks from today and they are granted liberty to file application for regular bail, which if filed would be considered as per law on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Vikram Nath, J.)
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the grant of anticipatory bail to respondents nos. 2 to 4 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28525 of 2023, vide order dated 25.07.2023.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant herein had submitted a written application on 13.01.2023 before S.H.O., Mufasil alleging that on the same day at around 7.00 pm, he came out of the house hearing the ruckus and saw that the body of his 20-year-old nephew, Mukesh Kumar, was ablaze the fire. When the appellant asked his injured nephew, he was told that Sindhu Devnath, Sanjit Devnath, Ratan Devnath (respondent no. 2 herein), Lalita Devi (respondent no. 3 herein), Sunil Devnath and Rina Devi (respondent no. 4 herein) had caught hold of him, whereby Sindhu Devnath told him that the appellant’s nephew loved his daughter and all of them started beating and abusing him. Further, it was stated that all of the accused persons, with an intention to kill, poured kerosene oil over the appellant’s nephew and set his body on fire. As such, Motihari Mufasil P.S. Case No. 28 of 2023 was lodged for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601[“IPC”, hereinafter.].
4. In the course of the treatment, the nephew of the appellant succumbed to the burn injuries on 17.01.2023 and consequently, Section 302 of the IPC was added.
5. Apprehending their arrest in connection with the above-mentioned FIR, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-22, East Champaran, Motihari, vide its order dated 24.03.2023. Subsequently, the Police submitted chargesheet against one of the accused persons namely Sindhu Devnath, wherein it was also categorically mentioned that from the investigation so far, the case has been found true against all the accused persons named in the FIR and subsidiary investigation of the case was still pending then.
6. Aggrieved by the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Patna High Court. The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the application of respondent nos. 2 to 4 and granted them anticipatory bail.
7. The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2023 and has submitted that such a grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court was unwarranted.
8. Notices in the instant matter were issued on 12.01.2024. However, despite service of notice, respondent nos. 2 to 4 had initially failed to put in appearance. Eventually, the respondents did put in appearance and sought time to file counter-affidavit which was recorded in the order dated 04.11.2024. However, on 25.11.2024, we were apprised by Mr. Amitava Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused nos. 2 to 4 that the accused persons have instructed him not to appear on their behalf anymore. Therefore, we had directed for non- bailable warrants to be issued against respondent nos. 2 to 4 to ensure that they are taken into custody and be produced before this Court on the next date.
9. Pursuant to the abovementioned order dated 25.11.2024, respondent nos. 2 to 4 are present in the Court today.
10. Mr. Arup Banerjee, Advocate-on-Record represents respondent nos. 2 to 4. Respondent no. 4 has been produced before us by Sub Inspector Mr. Sudhir Tiwari, East Champaran, Bihar.
11. As the respondent no. 4 has been produced in custody and such non-bailable warrants were issued only for the purpose of appearance since the respondents were evading to enter appearance before this Court, she was directed to be released.
12. As for the matter with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused, the law has been enunciated by this Court in Sushi
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in heinous offences.
Accused praying for anticipatory bail has to make out more than a prima facie case of false implication – Grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of course.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that demands for repayment of money, without evidence of instigation or mens rea, do not constitute abetment for suicide under Section 306 of the I....
Second or subsequent bail applications can be filed when there are change in circumstances, so that petitioner could establish entitlement of bail/anticipatory bail in view of change in circumstances....
Repeated anticipatory bail applications without a change in circumstances can be considered an abuse of the court process.
The power to grant bail should be exercised judiciously, taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the evidence on record, and the likelihood of the accused tampering with evidence or inf....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.