In Rajnish Kumar @ Bawla vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar ad Vipul M. Pancholi passed a 6-page long order dated November 04, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"8. The appellant has been in custody since 09.12.2024 and on conclusion of the investigation chargesheet has been filed, as noticed hereinabove, and charges have also been framed on 01.02.2025. 9. The co-accused against whom similar allegations having been made namely Sanjay Yadav alias Madhusudhan Prasad has been granted bail by the jurisdictional High Court vide order dated 17.04.2025 and the fact that the person who was not named in the FIR namely Pintu Kumar also having been granted bail on 11.09.2025 by the jurisdictional High Court, we are of the considered view that on the ground of parity the appellant is also entitled for regular bail. 10. Hence, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct the appellant to be released on bail on such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Sessions Court deems fit to impose. 11. We make it clear that the observations made hereinabove are only for the limited purpose of considering the prayer for grant of bail and shall in no manner influence the trial."
Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated April 2, 2026 passed by Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court, who had rejected the prayer for grant of regular bail, the appellant had approached the Supreme Court. The prosecution case arose out of incident that occurred on July 23, 2024 wherein eight named persons riding motorcycles allegedly fired indiscriminately upon the informant’s son Neeraj Kumar alias Fatalki and his friend Raju Kumar causing injuries. The informant alleged that the assailants also fired at her, but she was not injured. Neeraj Kumar who was injured in the firing, expired subsequently. The application filed by the appellant for grant of regular bail before the trial Court and High Court was rejected.
Supreme Court observed: "As seen from the allegations found in the FIR as well as in the chargesheet, the appellant was not named in the FIR which was registered initially against eight named persons only. In fact, appellant’s name did not figure in the FIR. It is only based on the subsequent statement of the deceased-Dhiraj Kumar recorded and also that of Raju Kumar who named the appellant, alleging that appellant along with Sanjay Yadav were keeping a watch upon the deceased and others informing the accused persons who were named in the FIR and appellant involved in a criminal conspiracy, the appellant and Sanjay Yadav were roped in as accused persons. However, the appellant contends that his implication essentially rests upon statements/confessions of co-accused."
Earlier, in Rajnish Kumar @ Bawla vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. (2026), Justice Sandeep Kumar of Patna High Court had passed a 3-page long order dated April 2, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"5. Considering the serious nature of the allegations, the involvement of multiple accused, and the fact that the appellant, along with others, fired indiscriminately, causing injury to the victim and resulting in the death of the deceased, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. The trial is directed to be expedited. 7. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner."
The appeal was filed by the appellant against the order dated November 7, 2025 passed by the Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil Court (Sadar), Patna in Special Case No. 474 of 2024, which arose out of Digha P.S. Case No. 477 of 2024, registered under Sections 118, 109, 61(2) and 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, and 35 of the Arms Act, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, whereby the appellant’s prayer for bail was rejected. As per the prosecution case, eight miscreants riding on three motorcycles came and fired indiscriminately at the informant's son and his friend, causing injuries. They also fired at the informant, but she escaped. The informant also alleged that the co-accused persons, along with some unknown miscreants, fired at the informant's son and his friend indiscriminately with the intention to kill. Thereafter, nearby people started pelting stones at the accused persons, and then they fled, and the informant's son and his friend were taken to the hospital. The appellant has three criminal antecedents.
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna, amicus curiae in special laws/courts case observed:"When the proceedings of the regular bail or anticipatory bail are not concluded, the court may grant temporary bail for the time period until the said proceedings are concluded. There is no statutory provision under the BNSS for granting interim bail. The concept of interim bail is wholly an outcome of judicial pronouncements. Interim bail is permitted when there is no chance that the accused will escape prosecution, when there is no chance that the defendant may tamper with the evidence, when there is no justifiable reason to conduct a confined interrogation, and when the hearing on the anticipatory bail claim must be postponed." Dr. Krishna pointed out that in Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P., 2009 (4) SCC 437, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a judge considering a regular bail application has the inherent authority to grant interim bail while the ball case is being decided on in its entirety. When someone requests regular bail, the court usually lists that request after a few days so that it may review the case diary, which must be received from the police authorities. In the meanwhile, the applicant must remain in custody. Even if the applicant is subsequently freed on bond, his image in society may have already been irreversibly damaged. A person’s reputation is a significant asset of his and one of the aspects of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court noted that the court involved has the inherent authority to grant interim bail to a person until the ultimate disposition of the bail application."
Dr Krishna noted that in Hemant Soren vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (SLP (Crl.) No. 9599/2024), the Supreme has Court upheld the interim bail granted to Hemant Soren by the Jharkhand High Court in the alleged land scam case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Court dismissed the
Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) Special Leave Petition. It upheld grant of interim bail on the basis of sound judicial reasoning and balanced appreciation of the facts on record and right to life and personal liberty.
No comments:
Post a Comment