Supreme Court Quashes Patna High Court Anticipatory Bail Orders | Urges High Courts to Direct Applicants to Sessions Court First
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta set aside the Patna High Court’s orders granting anticipatory bail to the accused in the murder of a Bihar health worker, directing them to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail. Noting the gravity of charges under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the Court held that the High Court’s intervention was unjustified. It further cautioned that High Courts should ordinarily avoid directly entertaining anticipatory bail applications and should direct litigants to first seek such relief before the Sessions Court.
The matter arose from the murder of Kumari Pushpa, a health worker posted at the Primary Health Centre, Pandarak, Bihar. On 16 December 2023, the complainant, her husband, lodged a written complaint at the Gopalpur Police Station alleging that his wife had been shot dead at about 3:30 p.m. The FIR was registered under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, naming five accused persons including the respondents.
According to the complainant, the deceased had been subjected to threats and harassment by the accused to extort money. The complaint alleged that the deceased had already paid large sums and was eventually killed by contract killers engaged by the accused when she could not meet further demands.
During investigation, the police examined CCTV footage from a shop near the scene, showing the deceased walking with a man when two helmeted individuals on a motorcycle shot her and fled. A breakthrough came with the arrest of Vishal Kumar, who made a confessional statement alleging that the family members of the accused had hired one Bittu Kumar for ₹2,40,000 to carry out the murder.
The investigation also revealed that the accused were allegedly engaged in lending money at exorbitant interest rates, about 35% per month, and coercing borrowers into further loans to recover amounts by force.
The accused sought anticipatory bail before the Patna High Court, which granted it on 12 March 2024 and 3 September 2024, citing factors such as the accused being women with clean antecedents and on parity with another co-accused. Aggrieved by these orders, the complainant approached the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the High Court’s orders.
The Supreme Court recorded that “we are unable to side with the reasoning ascribed by the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to the accused-respondents.”
It further observed that “the High Court has not given any cogent reason for granting anticipatory bail to accused-respondents.” The Bench noted that the High Court appeared to be influenced by the contention that the accused were women with clean antecedents, that it was improbable for the deceased to have paid large sums in extortion, and that the complainant had allegedly misused the situation to implicate the entire family.
The Court recorded that “the High Court has not fairly appreciated the gravity of the accusations levelled against the accused-respondents. There is a categorical assertion by the appellant-complainant against the accused that the latter were running a racket of granting loans at higher interest rates and later extorting the loaned money.”
On the role of courts in balancing liberty and victims’ rights, the Bench stated, “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.”
The Court further observed, “In the present case, this discretion was totally uncalled for especially at the stage of anticipatory bail… the grant of anticipatory bail to accused-respondents is unwarranted and without any valid reason which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.”
On procedural propriety, it stated, “High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself… the High Court fails to record any reason for directly granting anticipatory bail without impleading the appellant-complainant as a party.”
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court’s orders dated 12 March 2024 and 3 September 2024 granting anticipatory bail. It recorded, “the order passed by the High Court… is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Bail bonds stand cancelled.”
It directed, “Accused respondents are directed to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail. Needless to state that the bail application so preferred shall be considered on its own merits. The order passed by the High Court… is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Needless to state that the bail application so preferred shall be considered on its own merits.”
“High Court should always encourage exhausting an alternative/concurrent remedy before directly interfering itself… This approach balances the interests of all the stakeholders.”
Case Title: Jagdeo Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) 17805 of 2024 and connected appeal
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
