The Supreme Court has issued notice to Bihar government on a petition against the bail granted to a man accused of killing a practising lawyer in a broad daylight, while he was on his way to Patna Civil Court.
The petition was filed by Subhash Kumar, son of the 55-year-old deceased, alleging that his father was threatened by the accused on various occasions and the accused had also killed his grandmother in 2001, for which the trial was still going on. The petition was filed by Advocate-on-Record Smarhar Singh.
On February 7, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the state of Bihar and the accused returnable on March 7.
Petitioner Subhash Kumar, who is also a practising advocate, submitted that accused Kulshekhar Sharma alias Bhola Singh had killed the mother 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 also a lawyer and his brother were eyewitnesses in the said murder case. While being on bail in said case, the accused threatened to kill the deceased to prevent him from pursuing the case.
In September 2020, the petitioner’s father was shot in the chest by the accused, while he was 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 continued to threaten the petitioner and his family.
The accused was apprehended in February, 2021 and sent to jail. The accused’s first bail application in April, 2021 was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge.
The accused continued to threaten the petitioner from jail via mobile phone. In December 2021, the accused’s second bail application was accepted by the High Court of Patna.
The petitioner sought to bring forth the following questions of law through the petition:
Firstly, was the High Court correct in the impugned order to grant bail to the accused when the charges against the accused are of heinous offences under sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for which the minimum sentence is life imprisonment and the maximum is a death sentence.
Secondly, do the criminal antecedents of the accused (which he deliberately suppressed) have a bearing in the grant of bail.
Thirdly, whether the High Court’s order is a well-reasoned one that balances the fundamental right of personal liberty of the accused with the goal of public justice.
The petitioner’s most formidable argument against the grant of bail is that the accused is a habitual offender who is named in five other cases and had committed the murder of the deceased while being on bail for the case of the murder of the deceased’s mother.
The accused also has a history of threatening the petitioner and his family in order to suppress the case must be considered while granting bail.
It was further submitted that the accused in the present case not only has a criminal antecedent, he also has a history of threatening the petitioner and his family with a view to suppressing the cases pending against him. The petitioner fears for his life and lives in an undisclosed address. The family of the petitioner and the accused have long-standing enmity. The petitioner is an eyewitness against the accused.
Given the circumstances, granting bail to the respondent accused has the potential of derailing the course of justice. It is contended that the Hon’ble High Court of Patna has only weighed in a lack of evidence in the case to grant bail while disregarding all the other aspects surrounding the case and has thus failed to take a holistic view of the same.
The matter is to be listed next on March 7, 2020.
Case Name- Subhash Kumar Vs Kulshekhar Sharma & State of Bihar.