Supreme Court of India
Mendar Singh @Vijay Singh vs State Of Bihar on 10 December, 2024
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai
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order granting bail and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.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