The Supreme Court directs High Courts to encourage litigants to first approach Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, emphasizing procedural propriety and proper judicial process under the CrPC.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the importance of procedural propriety in handling anticipatory bail applications, emphasizing that High Courts should encourage litigants to first approach the Sessions Court before seeking relief directly from higher benches.
A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta made these observations while setting aside two anticipatory bail orders issued by the Patna High Court in a high-profile murder case tied to an alleged extortion racket.
Observations by the Supreme Court
The Court expressed concern over the “haste” with which the Patna High Court granted bail, noting that High Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC, now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), but should not bypass procedural norms without recording reasons.
The Supreme Court highlighted the dual benefits of encouraging applicants to first approach the Sessions Court:
- Opportunity for the aggrieved party: The complainant gets an initial forum to challenge the anticipatory bail granted.
- Judicial perspective: The High Court can assess the Sessions Court’s reasoning before independently granting relief, ensuring a more balanced and informed approach.
The bench further criticized the High Court for not recording reasons for granting bail and for failing to implead the original complainant, Jagdeo Prasad, as a party in the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case involved an FIR under Section 302 (murder) and other provisions, filed on December 16, 2023. The complaint alleged that Jagdeo Prasad’s wife, Kumari Pushpa, was killed by contract killers hired by the accused over a failed extortion attempt. The alleged racket involved lending money at an exorbitant 35% monthly interest rate.
High Court’s Order vs Supreme Court Analysis
The Patna High Court had granted anticipatory bail, relying on the accused’s claims that they were women with clean records and that the complainant fabricated the story to evade repayment of a loan.
The Supreme Court, however, found these arguments untenable, observing that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the accusations. The Court noted several aggravating factors:
- Murder committed in broad daylight
- Use of hired assassins
- Premeditated nature of the crime
The apex court emphasized that while protecting individual liberty is crucial, courts must also consider the suffering of victims, stating:
“A balance has to be struck to protect the individual liberty of the accused as well as to secure an environment that is free from any fear in the hearts of victims of the alleged perpetrators.”
Supreme Court Verdict
- Appeals allowed: The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s anticipatory bail orders.
- Bail bonds cancelled: The accused were directed to surrender within four weeks.
- Next step: The accused can apply for regular bail as per the procedure.
Case Title:
JAGDEO PRASAD VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
SLP(Crl.)No.17805 of 2024
Read Order:
