The Supreme Court set aside Patna HC’s anticipatory bail order in a murder case, stressing that liberty must be balanced with victims’ suffering. The bench directed the accused to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has recently stressed that while protecting the personal liberty of an individual is important, courts should not ignore the pain and suffering of the victims.
A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed this observation while setting aside a March 2024 order of the Patna High Court, which had granted anticipatory bail to two men accused in a murder case.
The apex court expressed its deep concern over the hurried manner in which the high court dealt with the matter.
The bench remarked,
“While the scheme of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides concurrent jurisdiction to the high court and sessions court for entertaining applications for anticipatory bail, this court has time and again observed that high court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself.”
According to the judges, this legal approach strikes a balance between the rights of all parties. It allows the aggrieved side to first approach the sessions court, and then the high court can review the reasoning and perspective applied by the lower court.
The Supreme Court pointed out that the Patna High Court had skipped this step and directly granted anticipatory bail without even giving the complainant a chance to be part of the proceedings.
The bench further observed,
“While the protection of individual liberty is important, courts must not turn a blind eye to the suffering of the victims. 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 victim of the alleged perpetrators.”
In its order dated September 17, the Supreme Court noted that although granting bail is a discretionary power of the court, it must be exercised carefully and in a fair manner.
The bench underlined,
“In the present case, this discretion was totally uncalled for especially at the stage of anticipatory bail.”
The judges also criticised the Patna High Court for failing to properly understand the seriousness of the allegations made against the accused.
They wrote,
“We, therefore, are unable to understand what prompted the high court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-respondents in such a heinous offence.”
The court highlighted that the complainant’s wife was brutally murdered in broad daylight, making the crime very grave in nature.
The case came before the Supreme Court after the complainant challenged the anticipatory bail order given by the Patna High Court. The original FIR in the matter had been registered in December 2023.
Finally, the top court directed the accused persons to surrender before authorities within four weeks and clarified that they are free to apply for regular bail thereafter.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Prashant Kishor
