The Supreme Court has issued a word to Bihar authorities on a petition towards the bail granted to a man accused of killing a practising legal professional in huge daylight, whilst he used to be on his way to Patna Civil Court.
The petition was once filed via Subhash Kumar, son of the 55-year-old deceased, alleging that his father was once threatened through the accused on quite a several activities and the accused had additionally killed his grandmother in 2001, for which the trial was once nevertheless going on. The petition was once filed by way of Advocate-on-Record Smarhar Singh.
On February 7, the Supreme Court had issued a word to the nation of Bihar and the accused was returnable on March 7.
Petitioner Subhash Kumar, who is additionally a practising advocate, submitted that accused Kulshekhar Sharma alias Bhola Singh had killed the mom of the deceased in 2001 in an altercation for which the trial is ongoing and injured the brother of the petitioner for which the FIR has already been lodged.
Deceased Harendra Kumar Rai, father of the petitioner, who was once additionally an attorney and his brother have been eyewitnesses in the stated homicide case. While being on bail in the stated case, the accused threatened to kill the deceased to forestall him from pursuing the case.
In September 2020, the petitioner’s father was once shot in the chest utilizing the accused, whilst he was once on his way to the Civil Court, Danapur. The petitioner’s father succumbed to his wounds and died as a result.
The accused thereafter absconded for five months and persisted to threaten the petitioner and his family.
The accused used to be apprehended in February 2021 and despatched to jail. The accused’s first bail utility in April 2021 was once rejected by way of the Additional Sessions Judge.
The accused endured to threaten the petitioner from prison utilizing a cell phone. In December 2021, the accused’s 2d bail utility used to be general by using the High Court of Patna.
The petitioner sought to deliver forth the following questions of regulation via the petition:
Firstly, was once the High Court right in the impugned order to provide bail to the accused when the fees towards the accused are of heinous offences underneath sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for which the minimum sentence is existence imprisonment and the most is a demise sentence.
Secondly, do the crook antecedents of the accused (which he intentionally suppressed) have a bearing in the supply of bail.
Thirdly, whether or not the High Court’s order is a well-reasoned one that balances the imperative proper of private liberty of the accused with the aim of public justice.
The petitioner’s most bold argument in opposition to the furnish of bail is that the accused is a routine culprit who is named in 5 different instances and had dedicated the homicide of the deceased whilst being on bail for the case of the homicide of the deceased’s mother.
The accused additionally has records of threatening the petitioner and his household to suppress the case ought to be viewed whilst granting bail.
It was once similarly submitted that the accused in the current case now not solely has a crook antecedent, he additionally has records of threatening the petitioner and his household to suppress the instances pending towards him. The petitioner fears for his existence and lives at an undisclosed address. The household of the petitioner and the accused have long-standing enmity. The petitioner is an eyewitness in opposition to the accused.
Given the circumstances, granting bail to the respondent accused has the workable of derailing the path of justice. It is contended that the Hon’ble High Court of Patna has solely weighed in a lack of proof in the case to provide bail whilst brushing off all the different elements surrounding the case and has hence failed to take a holistic view of the same.
The count is to be listed after March 7, 2020.