Supreme Court issues notice, grants relief to co-accused who was denied pre-arrest bail by Justice Harish Kumar

In Abhay Kumar @Yogi vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N. K. Singh passed an order dated July 3, 2025 granting relief to the appellant. The order reads:"if the petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR No.897/2023, he shall be released on personal bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) subject to undertaking that he will cooperate in the investigation/trial and shall not tamper with the evidences or threaten the witnesses." The Court issued notice returnable within four weeks. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that that the other co-accused persons, who have been ascribed similar role, has been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by the High Court whereas the petitioner has been denied the benefit only on the ground that he has criminal antecedents. It is stated that the criminal antecedents was of 2019. Insofar as the present case was concerned, there was a cross version of the incident and the petitioner also suffered injuries. The Court opined: "The matter requires consideration."

In Vikash Kumar & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar (2025), Justice Harish Kumar of Patna High Court passed an order dated May 5, 2025 denying bail to Abhay Kumar, one of the four petitioners saying, "So far the petitioner no. 2 is concerned, considering his criminal antecedent, this Court is not inclined to accord the privilege of anticipatory bail. Let the petitioner no. 2 be surrendered before the Court below preferably within a period of four weeks from today. In case the petitioner no. 2 abide by the order of this Court, the learned Court below shall consider the prayer for bail of the petitioner no. 2, without being prejudice by the present order." But it granted pre-arrest bail to the three other petitioners. 

The petitioners including Abhay Kumar apprehend their arrest in connection with Maner P.S. case of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 379, 504 and 506. All the petitioners had caught hold the grandson of the informant and brutally assaulted him and snatched Rs. 15,000. 

The counsel for the State had opposed the pre-arrest bail application of Abhay Kumar and others. He submitted that so far the compromise between the parties is concerned, the offence is not compoundable in view of the fact that FIR has been instituted under Section 307 and other allied sections of the Indian Penal Code.  

An offence that is "not compoundable" means it cannot be settled or resolved through a compromise or agreement between the parties involved. These are generally serious offenses that are considered harmful to society as a whole, and therefore require a full legal process for resolution. Compoundable Offences are offenses where the victim and the accused can reach a compromise or settlement, often with the court's permission. The legal proceedings may be discontinued if the victim withdraws their complaint. The examples include certain types of assault, wrongful confinement, and defamation. 

Non-compoundable offences are offenses where a compromise or settlement is not permitted by law. The case must go through a full trial, and the court will ultimately decide the outcome. These are typically serious offenses like murder, rape, and kidnapping.  The examples of non-compoundable offences include  murder (Section 302), rape (Section 376), kidnapping (Section 363, voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 326) and criminal breach of trust by a public servant (Section 409).