Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Sabitri Rani Bhunia Alias Sabitri … vs State Of West Bengal on 3 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol
ITEM NO.35 COURT NO.17 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 15208/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 14-08-
2024 in CRM(DB) No. 2047/2024 passed by the High Court at
Calcutta]
SABITRI RANI BHUNIA ALIAS SABITRI BHUNIA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 204755/2024 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
WITH
SLP(Crl) No. 15209/2024 (II-B)
Date : 03-01-2025 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhruv Surana, Adv.
Ms. Ravina Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arya Hardik, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, AOR
For Respondent(s) Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR
Mr. Bhnu Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Soumya Kundu, Adv.
Mr. S S Bandyopadhyay, Adv.
Mr. Abhaya Nath Das, Adv.
Mr. B C Bhatt, Adv.
Ms. Sitara Yadav, Adv.
Mrs. Barnali Basak, Adv.
Ms. Saket Gautam, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Ms. Muskan, Adv.
Digitally signed by
RAJNI MUKHI
Date: 2025.01.07
Mr. Syed Miran Ahmad, Adv.
17:19:21 IST
Reason: Mr. Gulam Rabbani, Adv.
Mr. Om Prakash Sapra, Adv.
1
Mr. Sukesh Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Jaydeep Chatterjee, Adv.
Mr. P.C.Das, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Kumar Chowdhury, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
Dr. Chandra Rajan, Adv.
Mr. P.shanthi, Adv.
Mr. Chandan Kumar Mandal, Adv.
Mr. Chand Qureshi, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(Crl.) No. 15208/2024
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we
are of the considered view that the High Court seriously erred
in granting bail to the petitioner in a case of a heinous
crime. It be also observed that while granting bail, the High
Court assigned no reason whatsoever, save and except for
recording that the apprehension of the State was not well
founded to the effect that in the event of grant of bail the
accused may either abscond and/or tamper with the evidence.
2 Our attention is also invited to the subsequent order
dated 24th December, 2024 passed by the Court in relation to
other co-accused whose bail application stood rejected. We
notice that while rejecting the bail application of the
accused in case No. CRM(DB) 2866/2024 titled “Amal Kumar
Barman @ Amal Kr. Barman @ Amal Barman Vs. State of West
Bengal” the Court itself observed as under :
“7. The de-facto complainant’s submission that the
present petitioner is not similarly circumstanced, can
be weighed on the basis of materials on record. It
appears that the present petitioner along with others
allegedly assaulted the victim on a previous occasion
over a dispute concerning felling of a tree and as a2
result of which, the petitioner surrendered and he was
taken into custody in connection with relevant PS Case
No. 203 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 and on the same day
the petitioner and other accused persons were enlarged
on bail. However soon thereafter, they intruded the
house of the victim and assaulted the de-facto
complainant and victim mercilessly on the fateful
night, and as a result of which the victim succumbed
to his injury subsequently. This is a serious issue.
After obtaining bail the present petitioner along with
others went to the house of the victim and assaulted
him in clear violation of the bail order granted by a
court of law. It is further revealed from the Case
Diary that the offending weapons, articles have been
recovered from the house of the accused of Sukomol
Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia as per leading statements of
the present petitioner and other accused persons
including Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia. The
seriousness of the allegation and the attitude of the
present petitioner along with others do not create any
confidence in the mind of this Court that no such
similar offences will be committed by the present
petitioner if he is enlarged on bail. Thus,
antecedents of the petitioner do not allow our
conscience to allow the prayer for bail at this stage.
Needless to mention, the relevant factual aspects
coupled with other materials in the CD were not
brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Benches on
14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024.” (emphasis supplied)
3. The reference of the order dated 14th August, 2024 therein
is of the order impugned in the present Special Leave Petition.
The FIR was registered on 07.08.2023 under the provisions of
sections 307, 323, 325,34, 379,447, 448 and 506 of IPC.
4. In this view of the matter, undoubtedly the crime being
heinous in nature, the Court ought to have accounted for all
factors while granting the bail. The same was not done. As such
the impugned order dated 14th August, 2024 passed by the High
Court at Calcutta in C.R.M.(DB) No. 2047/2024 titled “Ajit Kumar
Mal @ Ajit Mal Vs. the State of West Bengal” is quashed and set
aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender within a period
3
of two weeks from today.
5. With the above observations, Special Leave petition stands
disposed of.
6. Observations made herein are only for the purpose of
consideration of instant lis and shall not come in the way of the
petitioner in pursuing their remedies in accordance with law.
SLP(Crl.) No. 15209/2024
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we
are of the considered view that the High Court seriously erred
in granting bail to the petitioner in a case of a heinous
crime. It be also observed that while granting bail, the High
Court assigned no reason whatsoever, save and except for
recording that the apprehension of the State was not well
founded to the effect that in the event of grant of bail the
accused may either abscond and/or tamper with the evidence.
2 Our attention is also invited to the subsequent order
dated 24th December, 2024 passed by the Court in relation to
other co-accused whose bail application stood rejected. We
notice that while rejecting the bail application of the
accused in case No. CRM(DB) 2866/2024 titled “Amal Kumar
Barman @ Amal Kr. Barman @ Amal Barman Vs. State of West
Bengal” the Court itself observed as under :
“7. The de-facto complainant’s submission that the
present petitioner is not similarly circumstanced, can
be weighed on the basis of materials on record. It
appears that the present petitioner along with others
allegedly assaulted the victim on a previous occasion
over a dispute concerning felling of a tree and as a
result of which, the petitioner surrendered and he was4
taken into custody in connection with relevant PS Case
No. 203 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 and on the same day
the petitioner and other accused persons were enlarged
on bail. However soon thereafter, they intruded the
house of the victim and assaulted the de-facto
complainant and victim mercilessly on the fateful
night, and as a result of which the victim succumbed
to his injury subsequently. This is a serious issue.
After obtaining bail the present petitioner along with
others went to the house of the victim and assaulted
him in clear violation of the bail order granted by a
court of law. It is further revealed from the Case
Diary that the offending weapons, articles have been
recovered from the house of the accused of Sukomol
Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia as per leading statements of
the present petitioner and other accused persons
including Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia. The
seriousness of the allegation and the attitude of the
present petitioner along with others do not create any
confidence in the mind of this Court that no such
similar offences will be committed by the present
petitioner if he is enlarged on bail. Thus,
antecedents of the petitioner do not allow our
conscience to allow the prayer for bail at this stage.
Needless to mention, the relevant factual aspects
coupled with other materials in the CD were not
brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Benches on
14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024.” (emphasis supplied)
3 The reference of the order dated 27th August, 2024 therein
is of the order impugned in the present Special Leave Petition.
The FIR was registered on 07.08.2023 under the provisions of
sections 307, 323, 325,34, 379,447, 448 and 506 of IPC.
4. In this view of the matter, undoubtedly the crime being
heinous in nature, the Court ought to have accounted for all
factors while granting the bail. The same was not done. As such
the impugned order dated 27th August, 2024 passed by the High
Court at Calcutta in C.R.M.(DB) No. 2198/2024 titled “Basanta Mal
Vs. The State of West Bengal” is quashed and set aside.
5
Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender within a period of two
weeks from today.
5. With the above observations, Special Leave petition stands
disposed of.
6. Observations made herein are only for the purpose of
consideration of instant lis and shall not come in the way of the
petitioner in pursuing their remedies in accordance with law.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (ANU BHALLA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
6