In Buchiya Devi & Ors The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Aravind Kumar and Vipul M. Pancholi passed a 5-page long order dated August 10, 2026 found that order by Justice Prabhat Kuamr Singh of Patna High Court refusing anticipatory bail lacked reason.
Supreme Court concluded:"6. Perusal of the impugned order would indicate that it lacks reasons. In fact, this Court in the case of Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar alias Polia, 2020 2 SCC 118, has clearly held that judicial orders must record the reasons and the factora that weighed with the Court either in granting or refusing bail, the said element is conspicuously absent in the instant case namely in the impugned order. Only on the ground of nature of offence, the prayer for bail has been rejected. In fact, appellants claim to be residing separately from that of their son. The said issue is not being examined by this Court and it is for the jurisdictional trial Court to examine the same after full-fledged trial. In fact, this Court while issuing notice in the present petition had granted an interim protection from any coercive steps being taken against the appellants subject to their cooperation with the investigation and no material is placed to demonstrate that appellants have refused to cooperate with the investigation. 7. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Appellants are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Investigating Officer (IO) may deem fit to impose and also on the condition that appellant would appear before the IO for investigation as and when called and they shall also appear before the trial court on all dates of hearing except when exempted for any specific reason."
In Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118 and Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458, the Supreme Court laid down that it is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the Judge in the rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of judges to give reasoned decisions lies at the heart of this commitment.
Earlier, in Buchiya Devi & Ors The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh had passed a 2-page long order dated November 15, 2025, wherein, he concluded:"6. Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that victim is still traceless, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is refused." The petitioners had approached teh High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 365 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that on March 22, 2023, when daughter of the informant went out of the house to depose in connection with Gamhariya P. S. Case No. 57 of 2017, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, kidnapped her. The counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that there was specific accusation against these petitioners of kidnapping the daughter of informant, who was still traceless. The counsel for the petitioners had submitted petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case.
The appellants were arraigned as accused in FIR No.35 of 2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 363 and 365 IPC. They were before the Supreme Court seeking anticipatory bail after their prayer has been rejected by Justice Singh of the High Court and the trial court.
The Supreme Court noticed that omnibus allegations is made against the appellants viz., they have abducted the victim-Rakhi Kumari who was married to accused no.2 (Subhash Mandal), namely, the son of Appellant Nos.1 and 3 and husband of Appellant No.2 and it is also alleged that during the subsistence of the marriage with the victim-Rakhi Kumari, Appellant Nos.1 and 3 in connivance with Appellant No.2 had performed the marriage with accused No.1 and as such the victim had lodged several cases and while she was proceeding to depose in the said cases, she had been abducted and her whereabouts are not known till date. 5. The role attributed to the appellants seems that Rakhi Kumari (victim) who was married to Subhash Mandal was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws and from February 20, 2023 she went missing and complainant suspected that her husband Subhash Mandal and his family members including the other co-accused had abducted her with intent to eliminate her.
Besides Supreme Court's decision in Mahipal's case, the Supreme Court's judgement in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 and Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2016) 15 SCC 422 has categorically opined that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of CrPC, is of wide amplitude. The court is bestowed with considerable but not unfettered discretion, which calls for exercise in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course and not in whimsical manner.
In Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 1 SCC 118, it was held by the Supreme Court that the considerations in granting bail are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed; the position and the status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; of repeating the offence; of jeopardising his own life being faced with a grim prospect of possible conviction in the case; of tampering with witnesses; the history of the case as well as of its investigation and other relevant grounds which, in view of so many valuable factors, cannot be exhaustively set out.
In State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21, it was opined by the Supreme Court that there is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors couldbe. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused.
In Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi and Ors (2001) 4 SCC 280, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that it has to be kept in mind that for the purposes of granting the bail the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.
In Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89, the Supreme Court has observed "when the Accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code also and when their presence has been established and it is stated that they were part of the unlawful assembly, the individual role and/or overt act by the individual Accused is not significant and/or relevant."
In Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 3 SCC 501, it was made clear that the Court deciding a bail application cannot completely divorce its decision from material aspects of the case such as the allegations made against the accused; severity of the punishment if the allegations are proved beyond reasonable doubt and would result in a conviction; reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced by the accused; tampering of the evidence; the frivolity in the case of the prosecution; criminal antecedents of the accused; and a prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge against the
accused.
The same view has been taken in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr (2010)14 SCC 496; Ishwarji Mali vs. State of Gujarat and another, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 55; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118; Manno Lal Jaiswal vs. The State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 89; Ms. Y vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr 2022 SCC OnLine SC 458 and Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Anr. (2022)8 SCC 559.
No comments:
Post a Comment