Lawyer's Murder In Patna: Supreme Court Issues Notice In Son's Plea Challenging Bail To Accused

The Supreme Court on Monday issued notice in a special leave petition filed by a lawyer challenging Patna High Court's order granting bail to the person accused of murdering his father.

A Bench comprising Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Surya Kant granted liberty the petitioner to serve the Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar. The respondent-accused is be served through the SHO of the police station concerned.

The appellant's case is that his father was an eye witness in a case against the respondent accused and didn't succumb to his intimidation, and in a traumatizing manner, was gunned down by him in broad day light when he was on his way to Civil Court for attending his listed cases.

According to the petitioner, the accused had earlier killed his grandmother and injured his brother, and after being released on bail killed his the father in broad day light as his father, also a lawyer, was an eye witness who refused to succumb to his threatening and deposed against him.

" The High Court only recorded the submission of the accused, and considering the submission as gospel truth in one line observation that the there is no material collected during investigation only after 09 months of custody granted bail to respondent, " the petition states.

The petitioner has argued that the High Court did not take into account that there is material on record of threatening witness hence, there is all likelihood of the accused misusing the bail by influencing the witnesses, browbeating the informant as well as fleeing from the clutch of justice.

The petition filed through Advocate Smarhar Singh has argued that the High Court while granting bail lost sight to the glaring fact such as-

• Only after 9 1⁄2 moths of custody bail was granted to the main assailant overlooking the fact that minimum sentence in murder charge is life and maximum death.

• Accused is named in 05 cases

• The accused absconded for 05 months after killing petitioner's father, and while on run threatened the Petitioner not to do Pairvi and stop going to Court otherwise he will meet the same fate.

The High Court without there being any material and contrary to the finding of the police report which found sufficient material against respondent, in one line observation "....except suspicion no material has been collected during investigation.." granted bail to the respondent.

• High Court did not take into account that the accused respondent has not only misused the bail granted in the murder of the mother of deceased but killed the father of the Petitioner an eye witness, did not allow trial to proceed for past 15 years