(Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.)
Krishamani Devi __________________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Bihar and Another _______________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 5132/2024), decided on May 5, 2025
The Judgement of the court was delivered by
Judgment
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal filed by the appellant/informant, is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 79886 of 2023, whereby the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2/accused (Girdhar Kumar) in connection with the P.S. Case No. 466 of 2023, Belaganj, registered for the offence punishable under Sections-302, 307, 326, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent(s).
4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-State, it appears that the respondent no. 2/accused was initially not co-operating with the Investigating Officer and hence, proceedings under Section-82 of Cr.P.C were initiated against the respondent no. 2 (accused).
5. In our opinion, when the investigation was at a very nascent stage and when the respondent no. 2 was not cooperating with the Investigating Officer and when he was prima facie involved in a very serious case, the High Court had committed gross error in granting anticipatory bail to him, which, as per the settled legal position, should be granted in a very rare case and under extra ordinary circumstances.
6. It is required to be noted that the role of the Investigating Officer also appears to be very dubious, in the sense that though the charge-sheet has been filed against some of the accused, no charge-sheet has been filed so far against the present respondent no. 2-accused. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the Investigating Officer shall file the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2/accused within a week or so.
7. The Investigating Officer may file the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2/accused for the alleged offences in accordance with law.
8. In view of the above and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
9. The respondent no. 2/accused (Girdhar Kumar), is directed to surrender himself before the Investigating Officer within a week from today.
10. It goes without saying that an application, if any, is filed by the respondent no. 2/accused (Girdhar Kumar) after his arrest seeking bail, the same shall be dealt with by the Trial Court in accordance with law.
11. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6741/2024)
Krishamani Devi.….Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr.….Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 05.03.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 83292 of 2023, whereby the High Court has granted anticipatory bail to the respondent no. 2/accused (Rajesh Kumar Sharma) in connection with the P.S. Case No. 466 of 2023, Belaganj, registered for the offences punishable under Sections-302, 307, 326, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent(s).
4. Having regard to the same, it appears that the High Court, has granted anticipatory bail to respondent no. 2/accused at a very nascent stage of investigation in a very serious case.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2-accused submits that the investigation is going on since two years however, no charge-sheet is filed against him.
6. In our opinion, when the investigation of a very serious case, was at a very nascent stage, and the respondent no. 2 was not co-operating with the Investigating officer, the High Court has committed gross error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent no. 2 which, as per the settled legal position, should be granted in a very rare case and in extraordinary circumstances.
7. It is required to be noted that the role of the Investigating Officer also appears to be very dubious, in the sense that though the charge-sheet has been filed against some of the accused, no charge-sheet has been filed against the present respondent no. 2-accused. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the Investigating Officer shall file charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2 within a week or so.
8. The Investigating Officer may file the charge-sheet against the respondent no. 2/accused for the alleged offence in accordance with law.
9. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
10. The respondent no. 2/accused (Rajesh Kumar Sharma), is directed to surrender before the Investigating Officer within a week from today.
11. It goes without saying that an application, if any, is filed by the respondent no. 2/accused (Rajesh Kumar Sharma) seeking bail, the same shall be dealt with the Trial Court in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. of 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 6742/2024)
Krishamani Devi.….Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Bihar & Anr.….Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Micellaneous No. 76768 of 2023, whereby the High Court has granted bail to the respondent no. 2/accused (Prashant Kumar @ Mantu) in connection with the P.S. Case No, 466 of 2023, Belaganj, registered for the offences punishable under Sections-302, 307, 326, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed by the respondent(s).
4. Having regard to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-State, it appears that when the matter was considered by the High Court, the charge-sheet was already filed against the respondent no. 2, and that the CCTV footage recovered of the day of the incident showed that the respondent no. 2/accused was chasing the deceased.
5. Unfortunately, the High Court has granted the bail to respondent no. 2/accused in a cryptic manner, without going through the papers of charge-sheet and merely on the ground that the respondent no. 2/accused was languishing in the judicial custody since 04.08.2023, which was hardly a period of six months.
6. In our opinion, the High Court has committed gross error in granting bail to the respondent no. 2-accused, in such a serious case, without considering the gravity of the alleged offences.
7. In view of the above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside.
8. The respondent no. 2/accused (Prashant Kumar @ Mantu), is directed to surrender himself before the Trial Court within a week from today.
9. It goes without saying that the any application, if filed by the respondent no. 2/accused (Prashant Kumar @ Mantu) seeking bail, the same shall be dealt with the Trial Court in accordance with law.
10. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
———
