"The order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent-accused (Shahabuddin) is set aside and the state is directed to take all consequential steps, inter alia, for taking him to custody forthwith," a bench comprising Justices P C Ghose and Amitava Roy said.
The bench, which clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case pending against the RJD leader, asked Bihar government and the concerned court to take "all steps as contemplated in law to dispose of the case, as early as possible".
In its 10-page order, the apex court dealt with various aspects of the submissions and said, "Although it has to be accepted that the respondent-accused has already been granted bail by the concerned courts in other cases, a duty is cast upon the court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merit, and while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course."
The court said there was an allegation that Shahabuddin
had entered into a conspiracy to eliminated a witness in an earlier murder case against him, days before he was to finally testify in support of the charge.
Referring to the judgement, the bench said though the period of custody is a relevant factor while dealing with bail pleas, the "totality of the circumstances and criminal antecedents" have also to be "weighed" simultaneously.
It rejected the plea that on the day when Roshan was killed, Shahabuddin was lodged in Siwan jail and hence it was improbable that he took part in the crime.
"Qua the assertion that the respondent-accused was in judicial custody on the date on which the incident of murder in the earlier case had occurred, the judgment and order of the trial court convicting him has recorded the version of the brother of the deceased therein, that he had seen the respondent-accused participating in the offence," it said.
and societal interest", the apex court said the High Court had erred in granting bail to Shahabuddin.
"On a careful perusal of the records of the case and considering all aspects of the matter in question and having regard to the proved charges in the concerned cases and the charges pending adjudication against the respondent-accused and further balancing the considerations of individual liberty and societal interest as well as the prescriptions and the perception of law regarding bail, it appears to us that the High Court has erred in granting bail to the respondent- accused without taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the issue," it said.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
