The Supreme Court has stated September 17, 2025 that the security of personal freedom is important, but the courts should not ignore the suffering of the victims. A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta quashed the March 2024 order of Patna High Court, in which two accused in a murder case were granted anticipatory bail. The bench also expressed serious concern over the hurry caused by the High Court in settling the case.
The bench said, “The plan of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (now the Indian Civil Protection Code, 2023) where the High Court and the Sessions Court give concurrent jurisdiction to consider the applications related to anticipatory bail, the court has repeatedly commented that the High Court should always encourage to adopt alternative/concurrent measures before direct intervention.
High Court should also assess judicial perspective- Supreme Court
The bench said that this stance balances the interests of all stakeholders, in which the victim side is first given an opportunity to challenge before the High Court. The bench said that this stance also offers the High Court an opportunity to assess the judicial perspective implemented by the session court in concurrent jurisdiction, rather than implement his views independently at first.
He said that the High Court failed to register any reason for granting anticipatory bail directly without making the complainant a party. The bench said in its order of 17 September, ‘Security of personal freedom is important, but the courts should not ignore the suffering of the victims. Along with protecting the personal freedom of the accused, there will be a balance for the alleged criminals in the hearts of the victims. The bench said that the complainant’s wife was murdered in broad daylight.
Supreme Court directed the accused to confirm the accused
The Supreme Court was hearing the petition filed by the complainant, in which the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to two accused named in an FIR lodged in December 2023 was challenged. The bench directed the accused to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.
It also read: Supreme Court directed to speed up check bounce cases, now this facility will be available only in summons