Patna High Court ignored gravity, nature, seriousness of crime: Supreme Court cancels bail of murder accused

The Supreme Court on Monday came down heavily on the Patna High Court for granting bail to a history-sheeter murder accused without citing reasons for the same [Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar and anr]..A Bench of Justices MR Shah and BV Nagarathna noted that the High Court brushed aside the accused's criminal antecedents and did not give any reasons for granting bail."It appears that the High Court has passed the order mechanically and in a most perfunctory manner...has not at all considered the gravity, nature and seriousness of the offences alleged," the Court held. The top court thus allowed the appeal, quashed the bail granted to the accused and directed him to surrender before the concerned authorities. .The accused in this case was charged with several offences including murder and unlawful assembly. All the accused in the case were booked for murdering the brother of the appellant before the Supreme Court after he objected to their cutting from his bamboo clumps. The call to kill the now deceased was allegedly given by the accused who was granted bail by the High Court.The Sessions Court had denied bail to the accused, while saying that he actively participated in the offences. The High Court, however, overturned the verdict, noting in its order,"Considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court for the purposes of grant of bail is inclined to accept the submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel. Prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed."The High Court had taken note of a submission that a co-accused was out on bail. .Before the apex court, counsel appearing for the appellant said that the High Court order was bad in law as it did not give reasons and ignored the criminal antecedents of the respondent. Counsel for the State supported these arguments and highlighted the serious nature of the offences, including murder, violent rioting etc. Counsel for the accused submitted that his client was a 70-year-old suffering from several ailments, and that his criminal record was not hidden from the High Court. He added that the trial is almost complete and even in the other cases, he was already out on bail..The apex court noted that "no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while releasing the respondent No.2 on bail."Citing precedents, the Court highlighted that in bail orders, while courts need not evaluate merits in detail, they "cannot obviate its duty to apply a judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be, for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail." Taking into consideration the fact that the accused is involved in the double murder of the present appellant's father and younger brother, the Court said that "the High Court has simply brushed aside the same and has not considered the same at all." While taking note of allegations that the appellant and witnesses were being pressurised, the top court in its order stated that in the instant case, "bail is absolutely unsustainable and the same cannot stand."The Court thus set aside the High Court order and directed that the accused to surrender before the concerned jail authority forthwith..The petitioner was represented by Advocate Rituraj Choudhury while Advocate Devashish Bharuka appeared for the State. Advocate Atul Kumar appeared for the accused..[Read judgment]