LexSHAMBHU DEBNATH versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083 : 2024 INSC 1032 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused persons despite specific allegations of heinous crime u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet on record that established the allegations made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true. Headnotes† Complainant saw victim ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his 20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered: Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail – Courts must evaluate the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the facts of the case – Failure to take into account heinous nature of crime – The High Court, failed to account for specific averments against the accused in the FIR and the findings in the chargesheet that the allegations made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true – This mechanical and cryptic approach is not sustainable: Held: The High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in a case involving a heinous offense u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 – Specific averments were made in the FIR of the heinous nature of crime i.e., setting the deceased on fire with an intention to kill, and the chargesheet stated that the allegations have been found true against all the accused persons of such a heinous offence – Despite this, the High Court granted relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner – Grant of anticipatory bail in such serious offenses requires careful consideration of the materials on record, the gravity of the offense, and the role of the *Author 2084 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports accused – In the present case, the High Court failed to consider these aspects and disregarded the evidence. [Paras 12-13] Consequence of non-appearance by accused persons – Despite service of notice, accused persons had initially failed to put in appearance – Subsequently, after putting appearance and seeking liberty to file counter affidavit, the accused persons instructed the counsels not to appear – The Supreme Court issued non-bailable warrant to accused persons to be produced before court on the next date: Held: Despite service of notice, the accused persons had initially failed to put in appearance – Eventually, the accused persons did put in appearance and sought time to file counter-affidavit – However, the accused persons have instructed their counsel not to appear on their behalf anymore – Therefore, it is appropriate to issue direction for non-bailable warrants to ensure that they are taken into custody and be produced before this Court on the next date – Such non-bailable warrants were issued only for the purpose of appearance since the respondents were evading to enter appearance before the Supreme Court. [Paras 8, 11] Case Law Cited Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 INSC 106 : [2020] 2 SCR 1 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Anticipatory bail; Section 302 IPC; Heinous offense; Cryptic order; Mechanical manner; Intention to kill; Specific averments; Chargesheet. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CRLM No. 28525 of 2023 [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2085 Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. Appearances for Parties Anuj Prakash, Namit Saxena, Neeraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar, Chaitanya, Advs. for the Appellant. Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Arup Banerjee, Amitava Poddar, Ms. Ananya Poddar, Saurav Mitra, Advs. for the Respondents. Sudhir Tiwari, S.I. (I.O.) Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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-o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.