Heinous Offence Of Murder By Pouring Kerosene & Setting Deceased On Fire: SC Sets Aside Patna HC’s 'Cryptic Order' Granting Anticipatory Bail To 3 Accused

The Apex Court was considering an Appeal by the complainant against the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondents-accused by the Patna High Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath & Justice Prasanna B. Varale held, “The High Court has erred in granting the relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner without considering the materials available on record including the chargesheet which stated that the case has been found true against all the accused persons of such a heinous offence of murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased on fire.”

AOR Namit Saxena represented the Appellant while AOR Samir Ali Khan represented the Respondents.

The appellant, in this case, submitted a written application before the S.H.O., alleging that he saw that the body of his 20-year-old nephew was set ablaze by a fire. When the appellant asked his injured nephew, he was told that the accused persons caught hold of him and one of them told him that the appellant’s nephew loved the accused person's daughter. Thereafter, all of them started beating and abusing him. Further, it was stated that all of the accused persons, with an intention to kill, poured kerosene oil over the appellant’s nephew and set his body on fire. Thereby a Case was lodged for the offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 307, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the course of the treatment, the nephew of the appellant succumbed to the burn injuries and consequently, Section 302 of the IPC was added. Apprehending their arrest, the accused respondents preferred an application seeking anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was rejected. Subsequently, the Police submitted charge sheet against one of the accused persons namely Sindhu Devnath, wherein it was also categorically mentioned that from the investigation so far, the case had been found true against all the accused persons named in the FIR and subsidiary investigation of the case was still pending then. However, when the accused persons approached the High Court, they were granted anticipatory bail vide the impugned judgment.

On the earlier dates, despite service of notice, the accused persons initially failed to appear. It was only after issuance of non-bailable warrants that they appeared.

The Court relied upon its judgment in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) wherein it has been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it.

“Considering the above laid law and the fact that there are specific averments in the FIR against all the accused persons including the respondents herein that all of them had set the deceased on fire with an intention to kill him, we fail to understand as to how the High Court had granted relief of anticipatory bail to the respondents in an offence under Section 302 of the IPC”, the Bench said.

As per the Bench, the High Court erred in granting the relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner especially when the case had been found true against all the accused persons. Thus, allowing the Criminal Appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order of the High Court.

The Bench conceded the matter by further ordering, “Respondent nos. 2 to 4 are directed to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks from today and they are granted liberty to file an application for regular bail, which if filed would be considered as per law on its own merits uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment.”

Cause Title: Shambhu Debnath v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1032)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Namit Saxena

Respondents: AOR Samir Ali Khan, AOR Arup Banerjee

Click here to read/download Judgment