Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on December 10, 2024 set aside the Patna High Court's decision to revoke bail granted to a man in a murder case. The High Court had suo motu recalled the bail order based on a registrar's report on the accused's criminal antecedents, following the rejection of a modification plea.

"We find that since there was not even an allegation by the Investigating Agency that the appellant has violated any of the conditions which were imposed while granting bail or that he was misusing the liberty granted to him, it was not correct on the part of the single judge to recall its earlier order granting bail," a bench of Justices B R Gavai and K V Vishwanathan said.

Appellant Mendar Singh alias Vijay Singh challenged the judgment and order of August 25, 2023, whereby the Single Judge of the High Court had recalled its earlier order of December 8 2022, by which the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was allowed, the top court noted.

An FIR was lodged on July 9, 2016, against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

The appellant preferred an application before the Sessions Judge for grant of bail, which was rejected on July 5, 2022. He filed an appeal before the High Court.

The single judge of the High Court on December 8, 2022, directed the release of the appellant on bail on certain terms and conditions. By a second order on February 15, 2023 passed by the same single judge of the High Court, an application for modification of the order of December 8, 2022 came to be rejected.

However, by the second order, the High Court had directed the Registrar General of the High Court to enquire into the matter.

"It appears that the Registrar General conducted an inquiry and placed the same before the judge. Upon consideration of the report, the High Court by a third impugned order of August 25, 2023 recalled its earlier order granting bail and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn," the bench noted.

The bench further noted that a perusal of the orders revealed that the factor that weighed with the judge of the High Court was that the appellant had suppressed certain materials with regard to criminal antecedents and therefore was not entitled to the equitable relief.

The appellant's counsel contended that he had no intention of suppressing the material from the Court. He submitted that from the chart showed that in the cases which were treated as criminal antecedents either the appellant had been released on bail or a closure report had been filed.

The state counsel opposed the appeal, saying the judge of the High Court had correctly recalled the order granting bail, since concealment of material factors is an important factor which disentitles the appellant of any equitable relief.

The state counsel also said though a closure report was filed in this case as well, the court proceeded to take cognizance.

Having perused the materials placed on record and specifically the material that involved the appellant, the bench said, "We do not wish to observe anything about the merits or demerits of certain material as it may adversely affect the trial".

However, the bench noted that the orders passed by the single judge revealed that by the order of December 8, 2022, the single judge, after considering the material, had prima facie come to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to grant of bail.

Subsequently, though an application was filed for modification by the complainant, the same was rejected. While rejecting the prayer for modification, the judge however suo motu directed that an inquiry be conducted and on the basis of the said inquiry the judge recalled his earlier order granting bail, court highlighted.

Therefore, allowing the appeal, the bench set aside the orders of February 15, 2023, and August 25, 2023, and restored the order of December 8, 2022 granting bail.

Case Title: Mendar Singh @ Vijay Singh Vs State of Bihar And Another