Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Supreme Court seeks to know why accused with larger number of criminal antecedents granted bail, but not to the accused with lesser number of antecedents

In Amit Thakur vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K.V. Viswanathan passed an order on April 30, 2025. It reads: "Learned counsel for the respondent-State of Bihar prays for and is granted a week’s time to obtain further instructions as to what steps the State of Bihar has taken with regard to grant of bail of co-accused who have larger number of antecedents than the present petitioner. List the matter again on 07th May, 2025." The case arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated August 2, 2024 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court against the petitioner from Tarwa, Manjhagarh, Gopalganj. 

After hearing the second attempt of the petitioner for grant of regular bail as earlier the bail application of the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated November 7, 2023, the High Court had passed the order. The 2023 order reads:"Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner which includes similar cases, I am not inclined to grant bail to this petitioner. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. The trial of all the cases registered against the petitioner are directed to be expedited. It had noted that the petitioner was in custody since 25.04.2023 in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 47 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307/385/ 387/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act."

The petitioner along with others is said to have demanded extortion and for the same, the have shot at the victim, according to the prosecution. The petitioner's counsel had submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case because of his criminal antecedents. He had also submitted that no extortion was ever demanded by the petitioner and the informant had not identified the petitioner. Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the petitioner has four criminal antecedents

No comments: