ORDER : SLP(Crl.) No. 15208/2024 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the High Court seriously erred in granting bail to the petitioner in a case of a heinous crime. It be also observed that while granting bail, the High Court assigned no reason whatsoever, save and except for recording that the apprehension of the State was not well founded to the effect that in the event of grant of bail the accused may either abscond and/or tamper with the evidence. 2. Our attention is also invited to the subsequent order dated 24th December, 2024 passed by the Court in relation to other co-accused whose bail application stood rejected. We notice that while rejecting the bail application of the accused in case No. CRM(DB) 2866/2024 titled "Amal Kumar Barman @ Amal Kr. Barman @ Amal Barman Vs. State of West Bengal" the Court itself observed as under : "7. The de-facto complainant's submission that the present petitioner is not similarly circumstanced, can be weighed on the basis of materials on record. It appears that the present petitioner along with others allegedly assaulted the victim on a previous occasion over a dispute concerning felling of a tree and as a result of which, the petitioner surrendered and he was taken into custody in connection with relevant PS Case No. 203 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 and on the same day the petitioner and other accused persons were enlarged on bail. However soon thereafter, they intruded the house of the victim and assaulted the de-facto complainant and victim mercilessly on the fateful night, and as a result of which the victim succumbed to his injury subsequently. This is a serious issue. After obtaining bail the present petitioner along with others went to the house of the victim and assaulted him in clear violation of the bail order granted by a court of law. It is further revealed from the Case Diary that the offending weapons, articles have been recovered from the house of the accused of Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia as per leading statements of the present petitioner and other accused persons including Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia. It is further revealed from the Case Diary that the offending weapons, articles have been recovered from the house of the accused of Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia as per leading statements of the present petitioner and other accused persons including Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia. The seriousness of the allegation and the attitude of the present petitioner along with others do not create any confidence in the mind of this Court that no such similar offences will be committed by the present petitioner if he is enlarged on bail. Thus, antecedents of the petitioner do not allow our conscience to allow the prayer for bail at this stage. Needless to mention, the relevant factual aspects coupled with other materials in the CD were not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Benches on 14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024." (emphasis supplied) 3. The reference of the order dated 14th August, 2024 therein is of the order impugned in the present Special Leave Petition. The FIR was registered on 07.08.2023 under the provisions of sections 307, 323, 325,34, 379,447, 448 and 506 of IPC. 4. In this view of the matter, undoubtedly the crime being heinous in nature, the Court ought to have accounted for all factors while granting the bail. The same was not done. As such the impugned order dated 14th August, 2024 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.M.(DB) No. 2047/2024 titled "Ajit Kumar Mal @ Ajit Mal Vs. the State of West Bengal" is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender within a period of two weeks from today. 5. With the above observations, Special Leave petition stands disposed of. 6. Observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of instant lis and shall not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing their remedies in accordance with law. SLP(Crl.) No. 15209/2024 1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the High Court seriously erred in granting bail to the petitioner in a case of a heinous crime. It be also observed that while granting bail, the High Court assigned no reason whatsoever, save and except for recording that the apprehension of the State was not well founded to the effect that in the event of grant of bail the accused may either abscond and/or tamper with the evidence. 2. It be also observed that while granting bail, the High Court assigned no reason whatsoever, save and except for recording that the apprehension of the State was not well founded to the effect that in the event of grant of bail the accused may either abscond and/or tamper with the evidence. 2. Our attention is also invited to the subsequent order dated 24th December, 2024 passed by the Court in relation to other co-accused whose bail application stood rejected. We notice that while rejecting the bail application of the accused in case No. CRM(DB) 2866/2024 titled "Amal Kumar Barman @ Amal Kr. Barman @ Amal Barman Vs. State of West Bengal" the Court itself observed as under : "7. The de-facto complainant's submission that the present petitioner is not similarly circumstanced, can be weighed on the basis of materials on record. It appears that the present petitioner along with others allegedly assaulted the victim on a previous occasion over a dispute concerning felling of a tree and as a result of which, the petitioner surrendered and he was taken into custody in connection with relevant PS Case No. 203 of 2023 dated 10.05.2023 and on the same day the petitioner and other accused persons were enlarged on bail. However soon thereafter, they intruded the house of the victim and assaulted the de-facto complainant and victim mercilessly on the fateful night, and as a result of which the victim succumbed to his injury subsequently. This is a serious issue. After obtaining bail the present petitioner along with others went to the house of the victim and assaulted him in clear violation of the bail order granted by a court of law. It is further revealed from the Case Diary that the offending weapons, articles have been recovered from the house of the accused of Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia as per leading statements of the present petitioner and other accused persons including Sukomol Bhunia @ Sukumal Bhunia. The seriousness of the allegation and the attitude of the present petitioner along with others do not create any confidence in the mind of this Court that no such similar offences will be committed by the present petitioner if he is enlarged on bail. Thus, antecedents of the petitioner do not allow our conscience to allow the prayer for bail at this stage. Thus, antecedents of the petitioner do not allow our conscience to allow the prayer for bail at this stage. Needless to mention, the relevant factual aspects coupled with other materials in the CD were not brought to the notice of the Co-ordinate Benches on 14.08.2024 and 27.08.2024." (emphasis supplied) 3. The reference of the order dated 27th August, 2024 therein is of the order impugned in the present Special Leave Petition. The FIR was registered on 07.08.2023 under the provisions of sections 307, 323, 325,34, 379,447, 448 and 506 of IPC. 4. In this view of the matter, undoubtedly the crime being heinous in nature, the Court ought to have accounted for all factors while granting the bail. The same was not done. As such the impugned order dated 27th August, 2024 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in C.R.M.(DB) No. 2198/2024 titled "Basanta Mal Vs. The State of West Bengal" is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender within a period of two weeks from today. 5. With the above observations, Special Leave petition stands disposed of. 6. Observations made herein are only for the purpose of consideration of instant lis and shall not come in the way of the petitioner in pursuing their remedies in accordance with law.