Simplified Explanation of the Judgment
On 29 January 2021, the Patna High Court dealt with a significant issue of judicial propriety and consistency in bail decisions. The case arose from a violent incident in Daniyawan, Patna district, where ten named accused allegedly attacked a woman, her daughters, and other family members with weapons including a katta (country-made pistol) and an iron rod. The attack left one woman dead and caused serious injuries to others.
Two of the accused were Putur Paswan and Brind Paswan. According to the FIR, both played direct roles: Putur allegedly used a katta, while Brind allegedly attacked with an iron rod. The mother of the informant later died of her injuries.
The Bail Controversy
- In November 2019, the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Patna City rejected Putur Paswan’s anticipatory bail, noting the gravity of charges and direct role in the assault.
- Just a month later, in December 2019, the same judge granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Brind Paswan, despite identical allegations against him.
This inconsistency was flagged when another anticipatory bail petition in the same case came before the High Court in 2020. A Single Judge of the Patna High Court ordered that the matter be registered as a suo motu criminal revision to review the correctness of the bail granted to Brind Paswan.
High Court’s Analysis
The Court highlighted the following points:
- The allegations against both Putur and Brind were identical: they directly assaulted the victims with weapons, causing grievous injuries and ultimately the death of the informant’s mother.
- The trial court itself had noted these facts while rejecting Putur’s bail, but ignored them while granting bail to Brind shortly thereafter.
- Granting bail in such serious cases requires careful consideration of the nature of allegations, gravity of offence, and role of the accused.
- Judicial consistency is critical; conflicting orders in the same case by the same judge indicate non-application of judicial mind.
The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694, which stressed that seriousness of allegations and specific role of the accused must be carefully weighed in anticipatory bail cases.
Decision
The Patna High Court held that the bail order in favour of Brind Paswan was legally unsustainable because it lacked reasoning, ignored material evidence, and was inconsistent with the earlier order against Putur Paswan. Accordingly:
- The anticipatory bail granted to Brind Paswan was set aside.
- He was directed to surrender within four weeks and apply for regular bail.
- The Court further observed that since the same judge had passed contradictory orders in the same case, his conduct might require an administrative probe. The matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action.
Significance or Implication of the Judgment
- Judicial consistency: Bail decisions must reflect fairness and uniformity. Contradictory orders in the same case undermine public trust in the judiciary.
- Scrutiny of judicial officers: The Court hinted at administrative action against inconsistent judicial conduct, reinforcing accountability.
- Strict approach in serious offences: In cases involving murder and grievous assault, anticipatory bail must be granted with utmost caution.
- Guidance for trial courts: This judgment serves as a reminder that granting bail without proper reasoning or ignoring earlier findings is unsustainable in law.
Legal Issue(s) Decided and the Court’s Decision
- Whether anticipatory bail to Brind Paswan was justified when allegations were identical to Putur Paswan, whose bail was refused?
— No. The bail order suffered from lack of reasoning and inconsistency. - Can conflicting orders by the same judge stand in law?
— No. They reflect non-application of judicial mind and are unsustainable. - What remedy was given?
— The High Court cancelled the bail, directed surrender, and referred the matter for possible administrative scrutiny.
Judgments Referred by Parties
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
Judgments Relied Upon or Cited by Court
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
Case Title
The State of Bihar v. Brind Paswan
Case Number
Criminal Revision No. 378 of 2020 (arising out of Daniyawan P.S. Case No. 171 of 2019)
Citation(s)
2021(1)PLJR 552
Coram and Names of Judges
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Birendra Kumar
Names of Advocates and who they appeared for
- For the petitioner (State): Mr. Dilip Kumar Sinha, A.P.P.
- For the respondent: Mr. Arvind Kumar Singh, Advocate
Link to Judgment
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/NyMzNzgjMjAyMCMxI04=-Vs6ppXDbGCM=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
