As for the matter with regard to grant of
anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused, the
law has been enunciated by this Court in Sushila
Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1, wherein it
was held that the following factors have to be
considered while granting the relief of
anticipatory bail, which are as follows:
“92.4. Courts ought to be
generally guided by
considerations such as the
nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to
the applicant, and the facts of the
case, while considering whether
to grant anticipatory bail, or
refuse it. Whether to grant or not
is a matter of discretion; equally
whether and if so, what kind of
special conditions are to be
imposed (or not imposed) are
dependent on facts of the case,
and subject to the discretion of
the court.” {Para 12}
13. Considering the above laid law and the fact that
there are specific averments in the FIR against all
the accused persons including the respondents
herein that all of them had set the deceased on
fire with an intention to kill him, we fail to
understand as to how the High Court had
granted relief of anticipatory bail to the
respondents in an offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. The High Court has erred in granting the
relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner
without considering the materials available on
record including the chargesheet which stated
that the case has been found true against all the
accused persons of such a heinous offence of
murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting the
deceased on fire.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024
SHAMBHU DEBNATH Vs THE STATE OF
BIHAR & ORS.
Author: VIKRAM NATH, J.
Citation: 2024 INSC 1032.
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.
4. In the course of the treatment, the nephew of the
appellant succumbed to the burn injuries on
1 “IPC”, hereinafter.
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 nonbailable
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 Sushila
Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)2, wherein it
was held that the following factors have to be
2 (2020) 5 SCC 1
considered while granting the relief of
anticipatory bail, which are as follows:
“92.4. Courts ought to be
generally guided by
considerations such as the
nature and gravity of the
offences, the role attributed to
the applicant, and the facts of the
case, while considering whether
to grant anticipatory bail, or
refuse it. Whether to grant or not
is a matter of discretion; equally
whether and if so, what kind of
special conditions are to be
imposed (or not imposed) are
dependent on facts of the case,
and subject to the discretion of
the court.”
13. Considering the above laid law and the fact that
there are specific averments in the FIR against all
the accused persons including the respondents
herein that all of them had set the deceased on
fire with an intention to kill him, we fail to
understand as to how the High Court had
granted relief of anticipatory bail to the
respondents in an offence under Section 302 of
the IPC. The High Court has erred in granting the
relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner
without considering the materials available on
record including the chargesheet which stated
that the case has been found true against all the
accused persons of such a heinous offence of
murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting the
deceased on fire.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we do not deem it appropriate that
anticipatory bail should be granted to the
respondents-accused.
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The
impugned order of the High Court dated
25.07.2023 is set aside. Respondent nos. 2 to 4
are directed to surrender before the Trial Court
within four weeks from today and they are
granted liberty to file an 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.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI
DECEMBER 20, 2024
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment