Mendar Singh @Vijay Singh vs State Of Bihar

2024 INSC 969 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.7455-7457 of 2024)

MENDAR SINGH @ VIJAY SINGH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated

25th August 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge of the

High Court has recalled its earlier order dated 8th December

2022, vide which the appeal filed by the appellant herein

under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short. ‘the said Act’) was allowed.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.12 17:38:35 IST

3. An FIR was lodged on 9th July 2016 against the Reason:

appellant for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 1 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), Section 27 of

the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the said Act.

4. The appellant had preferred an application before the

learned Sessions Judge for grant of bail. However, the same

was rejected on 5th July 2022. Aggrieved thereby, the

appellant filed an appeal before the High Court.

5. As stated hereinabove, the learned Single Judge of the

High Court vide first impugned order dated 8th December

2022, directed release of the appellant herein on bail on

certain terms and conditions. Vide second impugned order

dated 15th February 2023 passed by the same learned Single

Judge of the High Court, an application for modification of

the order dated 8th December 2022 came to be rejected.

However, by the second impugned order, the High Court had

directed the Registrar General of the High Court to enquire

into the matter.

6. It appears that the Registrar General conducted an

inquiry and placed the same before the learned Judge. Upon

consideration of the report, the High Court vide third

impugned order dated 25th August 2023 recalled its earlier

order granting bail and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. 2

7. A perusal of the impugned orders would reveal that the

factor that weighed with the learned 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.

8. We have heard Shri Ganesh Khanna, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant and Shri Anshul Narayan,

learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State.

9. Shri Ganesh Khanna, learned counsel, submits that the

appellant had no intention of suppressing the material from

the Court. He submits that from the chart, it would reveal

that in the cases which are treated as criminal antecedents

either the appellant has been released on bail or a closure

report has been filed.

10. Shri Anshul Narayan, learned counsel for the

respondent/State vehemently opposed the appeal. He

submits that the learned Judge of the High Court has

correctly recalled the order granting bail, inasmuch as

concealment of material factors is an important factor which

disentitles the appellant of any equitable relief. According to

the learned counsel, though closure report was filed in this 3 case as well, the Court proceeded to take cognizance.

11. We have perused the materials placed on record and

specifically the material which involves the appellant herein.

We do not wish to observe anything about the merits or

demerits of certain material as it may adversely affect the

trial.

12. However, the perusal of the orders passed by the

learned Single Judge would reveal that vide order dated 8 th

December 2022 the learned Single Judge, after considering

the material, had prima facie come to the conclusion that the

appellant was entitled to grant of bail.

13. Subsequently, though an application was filed for

modification by the complainant, the same was rejected.

While rejecting the prayer for modification, the learned Judge

however suo motu directed that an inquiry is to be conducted

and on the basis of the said inquiry the learned Judge

recalled his earlier order granting bail.

14. 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 4 correct on the part of the learned Single Judge to recall its

earlier order granting bail.

15. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside

the orders dated 15th February 2023 and 25th August 2023

and restore the order dated 8th December 2022 granting bail.

Ordered accordingly.

16. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed.

17. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

..............................J. (B.R. GAVAI)

..............................J. (K. V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI;

DECEMBER 1O, 2024.

5