The Supreme Court of India has reiterated the procedural propriety that High Courts should encourage litigants to first exhaust the alternative and concurrent remedy of approaching the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that while High Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code, directly entertaining such applications without recorded reasons circumvents a balanced judicial process.
This significant observation was made while the Court set aside two orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna which had granted anticipatory bail to individuals accused in a murder case linked to an alleged extortion racket involving contract killers.
Supreme Court on Bail Jurisdiction
The bench expressed its “sincere concern with the haste at which the High Court has dealt with this matter.” The judgment emphasized the established judicial convention for handling anticipatory bail applications.
The Court stated, “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.”
The Supreme Court outlined a two-fold benefit to this approach:
- It gives the aggrieved party a round of challenge before the High Court.
- It “provides the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective so applied by the Sessions Court, in concurrent jurisdiction, instead of independently applying its mind from the first go.”
The Court further noted that the High Court failed to record any reason for directly granting bail and for not impleading the original complainant, Jagdeo Prasad, as a party to the proceedings.
Background of the Case
The substantive matter involved an appeal filed by Jagdeo Prasad, challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the accused in an FIR registered under Section 302 (murder) and other provisions. The complaint, filed on December 16, 2023, alleged that his wife, Kumari Pushpa, was shot dead by contract killers hired by the accused. The motive alleged was that the deceased, who had been continuously harassed and threatened, could no longer meet the extortion demands of the accused, who ran a racket of lending money at an exorbitant interest rate of 35% per month.
High Court’s Order and Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Patna High Court had granted bail after being influenced by the accused-respondents’ contentions that they were women with clean records and that the complainant had concocted the story to evade a legitimate debt.
However, the Supreme Court found this reasoning untenable. It held that the High Court “has not fairly appreciated the gravity of the accusations” and listed several “aggravating factors,” including that the murder was committed in broad daylight with the aid of hired assassins.
Observing that the grant of anticipatory bail was “totally uncalled for,” the apex court made a crucial observation on balancing liberty with justice: “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.”
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s orders. The bail bonds were cancelled, and the accused were directed to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.
