TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 1419
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the deceased Shardanand Bhagat lodged F.I.R. with the Vaishali, Bihar Police Station against all the accused named in the F.I.R. for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 427, 504, 506, 307 and 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act for having assaulted them and killed his elder brother Shardanand Bhagat, who succumbed to the bullet injury. As per the case of the prosecution, on fateful date of occurrence accused Ramawatar Bhagat (respondent No.2 herein) and other accused named in F.I.R. having armed with lethal weapons came to the Bamboo Clumps of the informant and they started cutting the bamboos. So, his brother - Shardanand Bhagat went to forbade them. On this accused Ramawatar Bhagat ordered to kill Shardanand Bhagat and then Shardanand Bhagat started fleeing away but he was chased and surrounded by all the accused persons. After that the co-accused Manish Kumar fired upon him from his rifle due to which Shardanand Bhagat got injured and fell down and when the informant went to save him, the co-accused namely Rambabu Kumar fired twice upon the informant due to which the informant also got injured to some extent. After that all the accused persons brutal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xcept after narrating the submissions observing that considering the rival submissions as also the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is inclined to grant the bail. It is submitted that as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the aforesaid can hardly be said to be sufficient reasons assigned while releasing the accused on bail. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in the case of Ramesh Bhavan Rathod Vs. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana (Koli) and others, (2021) 6 SCC 230, as well as in the case of Mahipal Vs. Rajesh Kumar, (2020) 2 SCC 118. 3.2 It is submitted that therefore the impugned order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail is just contrary to law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions as well as the recent decision of this Court in the case of Bhoopendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & another (Criminal Appeal No. 1279 of 2021, decided on 29.10.2021). 3.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise while releasing the respondent No.2 accused on bail, the High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant considerations while granting bail as laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, including the deci....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interfered with by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 5.1 It is submitted that the respondent No.2 is a 70 years old senior citizen suffering from various ailments and has nothing to do with the alleged offences. It is submitted that the alleged involvement in two previous cases has not been concealed from the Hon'ble Court while making application or submission of arguments and has also been discussed by the High Court in the impugned order. 5.2 It is further submitted that even otherwise the evidence in other cases is almost complete and only the doctor and the investigating officer are remained to be examined. It is submitted that in the earlier case, the respondent accused is enlarged on bail and that there is no allegation of misuse of liberty granted by the High Court for 30 years. 5.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed not to cancel the bail and/or interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court releasing the respondent No.2 on bail. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty-bound to explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion. 26. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan [Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528], a two-Judge Bench of this Court was required to assess the correctness of a decision [Rajesh Ranjan v. State of Bihar, Criminal Misc. No. 28179 of 2002, order dated 23- 5-2003 (Pat)] of a High Court enlarging the accused on bail. Santosh Hegde, J. speaking for the Court, discussed the law on the grant of bail in non-bailable offences and held : (SCC p. 535, para 11) "11. The law in regard to grant or refusal of bail is very well settled. The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being grant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice." 9. Even otherwise the High Court has erred in not considering the material relevant to the determination of whether the accused was to be enlarged on bail. The High Court has not at all adverted to the relevant considerations for grant of bail. In the case of Anil Kumar Yadav (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that while granting bail, the relevant considerations are, (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii) character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v) likelihood of his tampering. 10. Even the High Court has also not at all considered the criminal antecedents of the respondent No.2 - accused. Though it was pointed out on behalf of the informant that the accused is involved in two cases and that the appellant (informant) was restrained from proceeding further in earlier cases pending against the accused, the High Court has simply brushed aside the same and has not considered the same at all. The High....