Mechanical Grant Of Anticipatory Bail In Murder Case Unsustainable: Supreme Court
The Court criticised the order passed by the High Court, calling it cryptic and passed without any judicial analysis.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has set aside the anticipatory bail granted by the Patna High Court in a murder case, holding that in matters involving grave offences such as murder and attempt to murder, anticipatory bail cannot be granted in a mechanical or cryptic manner without proper judicial reasoning.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “The order of the High Court does not disclose any reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in a matter involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The impugned order is cryptic and lacking in judicial analysis.”
The Court added, “In cases involving serious offences, the grant of anticipatory bail in such a mechanical manner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.”
Advocate Rakesh Kumar represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellant, the son of the deceased and an eyewitness to the crime, filed the appeal challenging the Patna High Court’s order which granted anticipatory bail to three accused. The FIR stated that the deceased was struck on the head with an iron rod and later assaulted with lathis, resulting in his death. The Appellant and his uncle also suffered injuries while trying to intervene.
The Trial Court had rejected the anticipatory bail plea of four accused persons, noting their active role in the assault and prior criminal antecedents. However, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to three of them without assigning detailed reasons.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court noted that anticipatory bail in cases involving offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC cannot be granted without careful judicial scrutiny.
The Bench observed, “The High Court erred in holding that the allegations against the accused were general or omnibus in nature… The specific roles attributed to the accused, as stated in the FIR, indicate that they participated in the assault even after the deceased had collapsed.”
The Court found the High Court’s approach to be mechanical, lacking consideration of the gravity of the offence, and in disregard of the complainant’s eyewitness account. “The order of the High Court does not disclose any reasoning for granting anticipatory bail in a matter involving serious offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. The impugned order is cryptic and lacking in judicial analysis. In cases involving serious offences, the grant of anticipatory bail in such a mechanical manner cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside”, the Court added.
The Court noted that a plain reading of the FIR would reveal that the Appellant’s father had been brutally assaulted and killed in the presence of the Appellant and the High Court had failed to appreciate the gravity and nature of such allegations.
Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused, and directed them to surrender within eight weeks. The Bench further granted them liberty to apply for regular bail before the Trial Court, which will decide the application independently on its merits.
Cause Title: Rajeev Kishore Gautam v. State of Bihar & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2361 of 2025)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Chand Qureshi; Advocates Rakesh Kumar, Satish Kumar, Pradeep Kumar, Vipin Bihari Pandey, Praveen Pathak
Respondents: Senior Advocate Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad; AORs Manish Kumar, Rohit K. Singh; Advocates Vijay Kumar, Divyansh Mishra
Click here to read/download Order
