Page 1

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1423-1426  OF 2013

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.6710-6713/2012)

AMIT PANDEY ETC.                           Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                      Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. Heard Mr. Riturag Biswas in support of this  

appeal  filed  by  the  complainant  and  Mr.  Nagendra  

Rai, learned senior counsel appearing for some of  

the  accused  respondents.  We  have  also  heard  the  

counsel for the State of Bihar. All respondents are  

served.  

3. This  appeal  by  special  leave  seeks  to  

challenge the orders of bail granted by the High  

Court  to  Ram  Pujan  Pandey  and  Amukh  Pandey  in  

Criminal  Miscellaneous  No.7415/2012,  Jitendera  

Pandey in Criminal Miscellaneous No.7005/2012, Tanuj  

Pandey  in Criminal Miscellaneous No.3879/2012 and

Page 2

2

Hare  Ram  Pandey  in  Criminal  Miscellaneous  

No.1630/2012. All  these accused  have been  charged  

under Section 302 of IPC in FIR No.258 of 2011 at  

Madhaura Police Station in District Chhapra, State  

of  Bihar.  The  counsel  for  the  appellants  submits  

that  the  impugned  orders  granting  bail  to  these  

persons state that no role is attributed to them  

while, in fact, the charge-sheet very much shows as  

to how they did play part in the occurrence leading  

to the murder of one Nagendra Pandey. Thus, if we  

see the charge-sheet, we find that Jitendra Pandey  

went to pull up Nagendra Pandey from the motorcycle,  

and  Amukh  Pandey  and  Hare  Ram  Pandey  pushed  the  

injured  complainant  down  and  Jitendra  Pandey  had  

used  the  dagger.  In  this  state  of  affair,  it  is  

difficult to understand as to how the learned Single  

Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that  

there  was  no  overt  act  attributed  to  these  four  

persons. We may, however, add that we do not find  

any specific role attributed to Tanuj Pandey.   

4. Having heard the learned counsel in defence,  

we are still of the view that in this situation, the  

order of bail was not justified as far as these four

Page 3

3

respondents-accused, namely, Amukh Pandey, Jitendra  

Pandey, Hare Ram Pandey and Ram Pujan Pandey are  

concerned. We are not satisfied with the order of  

bail  that  has  been  granted  to  them  by  the  High  

Court. Consequently, we allow these appeals and set  

aside the orders passed by the learned single Judge  

of  the  High  Court  grating  bail  to  these  four  

accused.  These  accused  will  surrender  before  the  

concerned  Police  Station  within  two  weeks  from  

today.

These appeals are disposed of accordingly.  

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; September 9, 2013.