SC Sets Aside Patna HC's Anticipatory Bail in Shocking Murder-by-Fire Case

Post By 24 Law
June 25, 2025

The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the Patna High Court's order granting anticipatory bail to three accused in a gruesome murder case where the victim was allegedly doused with kerosene and set ablaze. The Apex Court criticized the High Court for passing a "cryptic and mechanical" order without adequately considering the gravity of the offence and the evidence on record.

BACKGROUND

The case pertained to the tragic death of a 20-year-old man who succumbed to severe burn injuries. As per the complainant, the deceased was brutally assaulted, doused with kerosene, and set on fire by multiple accused, including the three respondents in the present appeal. The victim identified the assailants before succumbing to his injuries. The FIR was initially registered under sections 341, 323, 307, 504, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with Section 302 added upon the victim's death. Initially, the Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the accused. However, the Patna High Court subsequently granted anticipatory bail, prompting the complainant to challenge the order before the Supreme Court.

SC's OBSERVATIONS

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale highlighted that the High Court failed to consider crucial factors which substantiated the allegations against the accused. The Bench remarked, “The High Court has erred in granting the relief in a cryptic and mechanical manner without considering the materials available on record including the chargesheet, which stated that the case has been found true against all the accused persons of such a heinous offence of murder by pouring kerosene oil and setting the deceased on fire.”

The Supreme Court underscored the principles established in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020), which mandate courts to evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, and the materials presented before granting anticipatory bail. It emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted in cases involving serious offences without due scrutiny.

Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court directed the accused to surrender before the Trial Court within four weeks. The Bench clarified that the accused were free to apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its merits, uninfluenced by observations made in this judgment. The Court concluded, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not deem it appropriate that anticipatory bail should be granted to the respondents-accused.”