SHAMBHU DEBNATHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

                  [2024] 12 S.C.R. 2083 : 2024 INSC 1032

                              Shambhu Debnath
                                      v.
                           The State of Bihar & Ors.
                        (Criminal Appeal No. 5579 of 2024)
                                 20 December 2024
               [Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. ]


                               Issue for Consideration
          Whether the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to accused
          persons despite specific allegations of heinous crime u/s.302 of
          Penal Code, 1860 and chargesheet on record that established the
          allegations made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true.

                                      Headnotes†
          Complainant saw victim ablaze and filed FIR – Complainant
          submitted a written application as he saw that the body of his
          20 year old nephew, was ablaze the fire – On being asked, the
          injured nephew named the accused persons – FIR registered:
          Factors for consideration for anticipatory bail – Courts must
          evaluate the nature and gravity of the offense, the role of
          the accused, and the facts of the case – Failure to take into
          account heinous nature of crime – The High Court, failed to
          account for specific averments against the accused in the
          FIR and the findings in the chargesheet that the allegations
          made u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 are true – This mechanical
          and cryptic approach is not sustainable:
          Held: The High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail to
          Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in a case involving a heinous offense
          u/s.302 of Penal Code, 1860 – Specific averments were made in
          the FIR of the heinous nature of crime i.e., setting the deceased
          on fire with an intention to kill, and the chargesheet stated that the
          allegations have been found true against all the accused persons
          of such a heinous offence – Despite this, the High Court granted
          relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner – Grant of anticipatory
          bail in such serious offenses requires careful consideration of the
          materials on record, the gravity of the offense, and the role of the


*Author
2084                                                     [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    accused – In the present case, the High Court failed to consider
    these aspects and disregarded the evidence. [Paras 12-13]

    Consequence of non-appearance by accused persons –
    Despite service of notice, accused persons had initially failed
    to put in appearance – Subsequently, after putting appearance
    and seeking liberty to file counter affidavit, the accused
    persons instructed the counsels not to appear – The Supreme
    Court issued non-bailable warrant to accused persons to be
    produced before court on the next date:
    Held: Despite service of notice, the accused persons had initially
    failed to put in appearance – Eventually, the accused persons
    did put in appearance and sought time to file counter-affidavit –
    However, the accused persons have instructed their counsel not
    to appear on their behalf anymore – Therefore, it is appropriate
    to issue direction for non-bailable warrants to ensure that they
    are taken into custody and be produced before this Court on the
    next date – Such non-bailable warrants were issued only for the
    purpose of appearance since the respondents were evading to
    enter appearance before the Supreme Court. [Paras 8, 11]

                            Case Law Cited
    Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 INSC 106 : [2020]
    2 SCR 1 – relied on.

                              List of Acts
    Penal Code, 1860.

                           List of Keywords
    Anticipatory bail; Section 302 IPC; Heinous offense; Cryptic
    order; Mechanical manner; Intention to kill; Specific averments;
    Chargesheet.

                          Case Arising From
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
    5579 of 2024
    From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2023 of the High Court
    of Judicature at Patna in CRLM No. 28525 of 2023
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                       2085

                   Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors.


                              Appearances for Parties
       Anuj Prakash, Namit Saxena, Neeraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar,
       Chaitanya, Advs. for the Appellant.
       Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Arup Banerjee, Amitava Poddar,
       Ms. Ananya Poddar, Saurav Mitra, Advs. for the Respondents.
       Sudhir Tiwari, S.I. (I.O.)

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Judgment

       Vikram Nath, J.

1.     Leave granted.
2.     The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant against
       the grant of anticipatory bail to respondents nos. 2 to 4 by the High
       Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 28525
       of 2023, vide order dated 25.07.2023.
3.     Brief facts of the present case are that the appellant herein had
       submitted a written application on 13.01.2023 before S.H.O., Mufasil
       alleging that on the same day at around 7.00 pm, he came out of the
       house hearing the ruckus and saw that the body of his 20-year-old
       nephew, Mukesh Kumar, was ablaze the fire. When the appellant
       asked his injured nephew, he was told that Sindhu Devnath, Sanjit
       Devnath, Ratan Devnath (respondent no. 2 herein), Lalita Devi
       (respondent no. 3 herein), Sunil Devnath and Rina Devi (respondent
       no. 4 herein) had caught hold of him, whereby Sindhu Devnath told
       him that the appellant’s nephew loved his daughter and all of them
       started beating and abusing him. Further, it was stated that all of the
       accused persons, with an intention to kill, poured kerosene oil over
       the appellant’s nephew and set his body on fire. As such, Motihari
       Mufasil P.S. Case No. 28 of 2023 was lodged for the offences
       punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian
       Penal Code, 1860.1



1    “IPC”, hereinafter.
2086                                                        [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


4.   In the course of the treatment, the nephew of the appellant succumbed
     to the burn injuries on 17.01.2023 and consequently, Section 302
     of the IPC was added.
5.   Apprehending their arrest in connection with the above-mentioned
     FIR, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred an application seeking
     anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected by the
     Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-22, East Champaran,
     Motihari, vide its order dated 24.03.2023. Subsequently, the Police
     submitted chargesheet against one of the accused persons namely
     Sindhu Devnath, wherein it was also categorically mentioned that
     from the investigation so far, the case has been found true against all
     the accused persons named in the FIR and subsidiary investigation
     of the case was still pending then.
6.   Aggrieved by the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional
     District and Sessions Judge, respondent nos. 2 to 4 preferred an
     application seeking anticipatory bail before the Patna High Court.
     The High Court, vide the impugned order, allowed the application of
     respondent nos. 2 to 4 and granted them anticipatory bail.
7.   The appellant-complainant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.07.2023
     and has submitted that such a grant of anticipatory bail by the High
     Court was unwarranted.
8.   Notices in the instant matter were issued on 12.01.2024. However,
     despite service of notice, respondent nos. 2 to 4 had initially failed to
     put in appearance. Eventually, the respondents did put in appearance
     and sought time to file counter-affidavit which was recorded in the
     order dated 04.11.2024. However, on 25.11.2024, we were apprised
     by Mr. Amitava Poddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
     accused nos. 2 to 4 that the accused persons have instructed him
     not to appear on their behalf anymore. Therefore, we had directed
     for non-bailable warrants to be issued against respondent nos. 2 to
     4 to ensure that they are taken into custody and be produced before
     this Court on the next date.
9.   Pursuant to the abovementioned order dated 25.11.2024, respondent
     nos. 2 to 4 are present in the Court today.
10. Mr. Arup Banerjee, Advocate-on-Record represents respondent nos.
    2 to 4. Respondent no. 4 has been produced before us by Sub
    Inspector Mr. Sudhir Tiwari, East Champaran, Bihar.
[2024] 12 S.C.R.                                                           2087

               Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors.


11. As the respondent no. 4 has been produced in custody and such
    non-bailable warrants were issued only for the purpose of appearance
    since the respondents were evading to enter appearance before this
    Court, she was directed to be released.
12. As for the matter with regard to grant of anticipatory bail to the
    respondents-accused, the law has been enunciated by this Court
    in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi),2 wherein it was held
    that the following factors have to be considered while granting the
    relief of anticipatory bail, which are as follows:
            “92.4. Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations
            such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role
            attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while
            considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it.
            Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion; equally
            whether and if so, what kind of special conditions are to
            be imposed (or not imposed) are dependent on facts of
            the case, and subject to the discretion of the court.”
13. Considering the above laid law and the fact that there are specific
    averments in the FIR against all the accused persons including the
    respondents herein that all of them had set the deceased on fire with
    an intention to kill him, we fail to understand as to how the High Court
    had granted relief of anticipatory bail to the respondents in an offence
    under Section 302 of the IPC. The High Court has erred in granting
    the relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner without considering
    the materials available on record including the chargesheet which
    stated that the case has been found true against all the accused
    persons of such a heinous offence of murder by pouring kerosene
    oil and setting the deceased on fire.
14. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not
    deem it appropriate that anticipatory bail should be granted to the
    respondents-accused.
15. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned order of
    the High Court dated 25.07.2023 is set aside. Respondent nos.
    2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four



2   (2020) 5 SCC 1
2088                                                              [2024] 12 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


     weeks from today and they are granted liberty to file an application
     for regular bail, which if filed would be considered as per law on its
     own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.
16. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankitesh Ojha, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.)