Dismissed

Sugalal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC23 Apr 2013CR. MISC./13032/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected the appellant's renewal of bail application for dacoity. The court held that mere custody duration is not a fresh ground and emphasized mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents in all bail petitions. The court issued a directive requiring advocates to include criminal history in every bail application.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail dismissed; direction issued to state criminal antecedents in all future bail applications.

Sugalal Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar — Bail and Remand | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13032 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Sugalal Yadav son of Anant Pd. Yadav, resident of village- Bariyarpur, P.S. Narpatganj, District- Araria .... .... Petitioner Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Kumar Singh, advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Satyavrat Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

5 23-04-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

¶4

By this application the petitioner seeks to renew his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by this court vide order dated 14-12-2012 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44132 of 2012. The petitioner is an accused in Narpatganj PS case No. 135 of 2012 for the offence alleged to have been committed under section 395 (Dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code.

¶5

Nearly three months after rejection of his prayer for regular bail, the petitioner has filed the present application on 19-03-2013 on only plea that co-accused Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan had been directed to be released on bail by this court vide order dated 06-03-2013 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44983 of 2012. The petitioner’s plea is that he was apprehended

¶6

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶7

2/8

¶8

on the basis of confessional statement of said co-accused Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan and over and above this, there was no material to implicate him with the offence alleged against him. Plea of the petitioner is that his case is on much better footing than Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan, the co-accused, who has been granted bail subsequently by this court.

¶9

Before dealing with the submission made on behalf of the applicant in the present application, I would take note of the circumstances in which the present application has been filed which narrate the sordid state of affairs in which the persons accused of serious offences attempt to hoodwink this court in order to get the privilege of bail.

¶10

The petitioner’s earlier bail application being Cr. Misc. No.44132 of 2012 was filed on 31-10-2012. The application did not contain any statement as regards the criminal antecedent of the petitioner. As would appear from the order dated 14-12-2012, the petitioner was made to file a supplementary affidavit stating the details of his criminal antecedent. In the supplementary affidavit, it was stated that petitioner was accused in two cases instituted against him earlier; one being Narpatganj PS case No. 160 of 2005 registered for various offences including offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the other,

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶12

3/8

¶13

Forbesganj PS case No. 167 of 2002 for the offence under sections 395 (Dacoity) and 397 (Dacoity with attempt to cause murder or grievous hurt) of the Indian Penal Code with a further statement that petitioner was enjoying the privilege of bail in the above mentioned cases.

¶14

Not only because the petitioner had criminal antecedent connecting the petitioner with serious offences punishable under sections 307, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, taking also in account the fact that petitioner’s criminal history was suppressed in the application seeking regular bail, this court vide order dated 14-12-2012 refused to exercise its discretion for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶15

This is to be noted that at the time of hearing of the petitioner’s earlier bail application, that is, Cr. Misc. No. 44132 of 2012, reliance was placed on the order dated 06-11-2012 passed by this court in Cr. Misc. No. 41158/2012 (Bhagwat Yadav vs. the State of Bihar) by which the other co-accused, Bhagwat Yadav, was granted bail. Inspite of such order, taking into account the criminal antecedent of the petitioner which was suppressed in the original bail application and the fact that petitioner was accused in cases of similar nature, this court had rejected the prayer for bail vide order dated 14-12-2012. This is one aspect of the matter.

¶16

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶17

4/8

¶18

When the present application, by which the prayer for bail was sought to be renewed, was taken up by this court, it was thought proper to peruse the records of other cases in which accused persons were granted bail by this court, which arise out of Narpatganj PS case No. 135/2012. As has been noted above, Bhagwat Yadav had approached this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 44158 of 2012 and Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan had approached this court vide Cr. Misc. No. 44983 of 2012. The present petitioner had filed the earlier bail application vide Cr. Misc. No. 44132 of 2012. From perusal of the bail applications in all these three cases, I find that in none of the three applications there is any mention about the criminal antecedent which the petitioners of the respective cases had. In case of Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan, in compliance of specific order passed by this court on 14-12-2012, a supplementary affidavit was filed disclosing that he was accused in five other cases including a case under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. It is not known from the records as to whether other co-accused Bhagwat Yadav had any criminal antecedent or not as there is no such statement in the application.

¶19

In the present application, that is, Cr. Misc. No.13032 of 2013 the petitioner has come with specific plea in paragraph 11

¶20

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶21

5/8

¶22

which reads as follows:-

¶23

“ That, it is humbly and respectfully submitted that confessing accused Bindeshwari Paswan @ Bindi Paswan, who carries long list of criminal cases has been granted bail by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Akhilesh Chandra on 6/03/2013 vide Cr. Misc. No. 44983 of 2012 and the case of the petitioner stand on much better footing.”

¶24

As regards this petitioner, though there is statement

¶25

in paragraph 12 that he is accused in two other cases, there is no statement as to since when he is on bail.

¶26

This court takes judicial notice of the fact that there is a practice in this court of stating criminal antecedent of petitioner in bail applications while seeking bail so as to show the bonafide of the accused person.

¶27

Grant of bail is discretion of the court which of course has to be exercised judicially. The courts from time to time have laid down the principles/ guidelines while considering application for bail. Reference may be made in this connection to

¶28

(2010) 14 SCC 496 (Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee).

¶29

“9. We are of the opinion that the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High

¶30

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶31

6/8

¶32

Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are:

¶33

(i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.”

¶34

The factors, as enumerated by the Supreme Court, to

¶35

be borne in mind while considering the application for bail inter alia are; character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused as well as likelihood of offence being repeated. Criminal antecedent of an accused is an important fact while considering an application for bail so as to assess his character, behaviour and, particularly, “likelihood of the offence being repeated”.

¶36

Over and above the fact that accused person has been granted bail though having more criminal antecedents than the petitioner, no other fresh ground has been made out for

¶37

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶38

7/8

¶39

reconsideration of petitioner’s prayer for bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that custody of the petitioner is a fresh ground on which his application for renewal of bail should be considered. In my view, however, period of custody of an accused is not a fresh ground for fresh consideration.

¶40

As has been laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528 , though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the same can be entertained only if there are fresh grounds which persuade the court to take a view different from the one taken in the earlier applications.

¶41

This is to be noted that the earlier order, passed in the case of present petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 44132 of 2012 by which the application was rejected, was not brought to the notice of his Lordship while considering the bail application filed by Bindi Paswan @ Bindeshwari Paswan.

¶42

In the present case as in my opinion the petitioner has not made out a fresh ground for renewal of his prayer for bail, the application is rejected. The petitioner shall not renew his prayer for bail till conclusion of the trial, unless any fresh ground is made out.

¶43

Having taken note of the facts mentioned above, I

¶44

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13032 of 2013 (5) dt.23-04-2013

¶45

8/8

¶46

am of the view that criminal antecedent of an accused is an important factor for consideration while exercising discretion of grant of bail and non-disclosure of criminal antecedent is an impediment in such process. I, therefore, consider it proper to direct that, henceforth, it will be obligatory to state criminal antecedent of the petitioner/ petitioners, in every application, seeking anticipatory or regular bail before this court.

¶47

Let a copy of this order be placed before learned Registrar General for circulation of the gist of paragraph 18 of this order in the Registry as well as for its communication to the three Associations of learned advocates of this court.

¶48

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶49

BKS/-

Sugalal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sugalal Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhusudan Pathak and Ors. Vs Hazari Sah

Brahma Swaroop Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Swarup Ray and Ors. Vs Bhupendra Yadav and Ors.

Jhaman Bhagat Vs Khiru Roy and Ors.

Indu Bhushan Singh Vs Sunaina Devi and Ors.

Dulhin Lakshmina Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.