1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1018 OF 2022

[Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.5602 of 2022]

DROPATI DEVI

APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

1.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant/complainant challenges the order

dated 19.01.2022 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 31106 of

2021, by which the application filed by the respondent

Nos. 2 and 3 for anticipatory bail has been allowed.

3.

The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are Accused Nos. 2

and 7 respectively in FIR No. 196 of 2020 for various

offences including Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,

1860 (“the IPC”).

4.

We do not propose to go into the merits of the

matter.

5.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant as well as the learned counsel for the State that

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were absconding for a long

period, and as such, the proceedings under Section 82 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) came

Digitally signed by Dr.

Mukesh Nasa

Date: 2022.07.28

17:09:43 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

2

to be initiated against them.

6.

It is submitted that the anticipatory bail has been

granted in such a serious matter without considering the

fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were absconding and

also that the proceedings were initiated against them

under Section 82 of the Code.

7.

We have perused the impugned order. The initial

few paragraphs of the impugned order only consider the

factual background and the submissions of the parties.

The penultimate paragraph states that considering the

aforesaid facts, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed

to be released on bail. However, no reasons for allowing

the application could be found in the impugned order.

8.

When the High Court exercises its extra­ordinary

powers of releasing the accused involved in a case under

Section 302 of the IPC, the High Court is expected to at

least give some reasons as to why it finds it appropriate

to release such an accused on an anticipatory bail.

9.

Time and again, this Court has emphasized the

need of giving reasons, may be in brief, while allowing or

rejecting such applications. When an offence is serious

like the one under Section 302 of the IPC and the relief

sought is of an anticipatory bail, the Court is required to

3

be more cautious and exercise its discretion with greater

circumspection.

10.

The appeal deserves to be allowed and the

impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside on

the short ground that it is bereft of any reason.

11.

The Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned

order dated 19.01.2022 passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.31106

of 2021 is quashed and set aside. The respondent Nos. 2

and 3 are directed to surrender before the learned trial

Court within a period of four weeks from today.

12.

Needless to say that the present order would not

come in the way of the respondents­accused in moving

an application for regular bail after surrendering, and if

such an application is moved, the same would be

considered on its own merits in accordance with law.

.....................J.

(B.R. GAVAI)

.………………………………......................J

(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

NEW DELHI;

22^nd JULY, 2022

4

ITEM NO.37 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5602/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 19-01-2022

in CRLM No. 31106/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Patna)

DROPATI DEVI

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Respondent(s)

(IA No. 77863/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED

JUDGMENT

IA N