Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, J.
State of Madhya Pradesh
Versus
Pradeep Sharma
Criminal Appeal No. 2049 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4102 of 2013) with Criminal Appeal No. 2050 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4406 of 2013)
Decided on : 06-12-2013
Facts of the Case :
The only question for consideration in these appeals was whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 ofthe Code to the respondents/accused when the investigation is pending,particularly, when both the accused had been absconding all along and not cooperating with the investigation.
Findings of the Court :
A.Perusal of the materials revealed that therespondents administered poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, thestatements of witnesses that were recorded and the report of the Departmentof Forensic Medicine & Toxicology Government Medical College &Hospital,Nagpur confirmed the existence of poison in milkrabri. Warrants were issued for the arrest of the respondents herein. Since they were notavailable/traceable, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code was issued.The documents produced by the State clearlyshow that the CJM, Chhindwara, M.P. issued a proclamation requiring the appearance of both the respondents/accused under Section 82 of the Code toanswer the complaint on 29.12.2012. All these materials were neitheradverted to nor considered by the High Court while granting anticipatorybail and the High Court, without indicating any reason except stating"facts and circumstances of the case", granted an order of anticipatorybail to both the accused.
B.Both the accused were facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 302and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. In such serious offences,particularly, the respondents/accused being proclaimed offenders, impugned orders of granting anticipatory bail could not be sustained. TheHigh Court failed to appreciate that it is a settled position of law thatwhere the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperatedwith the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail. Impugned order of the High Court wereset aside. Appeals were allowed .
Result : Appeals allowed
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The power under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code is extraordinary and should only be exercised in exceptional cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person may be falsely implicated or may misuse their liberty (!) (!) .
When an individual is declared an absconder or proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Code, they are not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail (!) (!) .
Granting anticipatory bail to an accused facing serious charges, especially when they have been absconding and not cooperating with investigation, is generally unjustified and can be legally challenged (!) (!) .
The decision to grant anticipatory bail must be based on a proper analysis of the facts and circumstances of the case, including whether the accused has cooperated with the investigation or has been declared an absconder (!) (!) .
If the materials reveal that the accused administered poison, and there are witness statements and forensic reports confirming this, then the case involves serious offences that warrant careful consideration before granting bail (!) (!) .
The failure of the court granting anticipatory bail to consider relevant materials, such as proclamations under Section 82 and the accused's status as an absconder, constitutes a legal error, and such orders can be set aside (!) .
Once an order of anticipatory bail is challenged and found to be unjustified, the accused may be directed to surrender within a specified period, failing which they can be taken into custody (!) .
The appellate authority has the power to set aside the anticipatory bail orders if they are found to be contrary to legal principles, especially in cases involving serious offences and non-cooperation by the accused (!) .
Overall, the legal framework emphasizes that anticipatory bail should be granted sparingly and only when justified by the facts, with particular caution exercised when the accused is an absconder or proclaimed offender (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you require a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the orders dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012 respectively whereby the High Court granted anticipatory bail to the respondents herein.
3. Brief facts:
a) The case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Singh Thakur (the deceased), resident of village Gopalpur, Tehsil Chaurai, District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh and Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), resident of the same village, were having enmity with each other on account of election to the post of Sarpanch.
b) On 10.09.2011, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), in order to get rid of Rajesh Singh Thakur (the deceased), conspired along with other accused persons and managed to call him to the Pawar Tea House, Chhindwara on the pretext of setting up of a tower in a field where they offered him poisoned milk rabri (sweet dish).
c) After consuming the same, when he left the place to meet his sister, his condition started getting deteriorated because of vomiting and diarrhea. Immediately, the father of the deceased took him to the District Hospital, Chhindwara wherefrom he was referred to the Government Hospital, Chhindwara.
d) Since there was no improvement in his condition, on 11.09.2011, he was shifted to the Care Hospital, Nagpur where he took his last breath. The hospital certified the cause of death to be poisoning. On the very same day, after sending the information to the Police Station, Sitabardi, Nagpur, the body was sent for the post mortem.
e) Inder Singh Thakur-father of the deceased submitted a written complaint to the Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara on 13.09.2011 suspecting the role of the respondents herein. After investigation, a First Information Report (in short ‘the FIR’) being No. 1034/2011 dated 18.10.2011 was registered under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).
f) On 01.08.2012, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein) moved an application for anticipatory bail by filing Misc. Criminal Case No. 7093 of 2012 before the High Court which got rejected vide order dated 01.08.2012 on the ground that custodial interrogation is necessary in the case.
g) On 26.08.2012, a charge sheet was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara against Sanjay Namdev, Rahul Borkar, Ravi Paradkar and Vijay @ Monu Brahambhatt whereas the investigation in respect of Pradeep Sharma, Sudhir Sharma and Gudda @ Naresh Raghuvanshi (respondents herein), absconding accused, continued since the very date of the incident.
h) On 21.11.2012, arrest warrants were issued against Pradeep Sharma, Sudhir Sharma and Gudda @ Naresh Raghuvanshi but the same were returned to the Court without service. Since the accused persons were not traceable, on 29.11.2012, a proclamation under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) was issued against them for their appearance to answer the complaint.
i) Instead of appealing the order dated 01.08.2012, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein) filed another application for anticipatory bail being Misc. Criminal Case No. 9996 of 2012 before the High Court. Vide order dated 10.01.2013, the High Court granted anticipatory bail to Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein). Similarly, another accused-Gudda @ Naresh Raghuvanshi was granted anticipatory bail by the High Court vide order dated 17.01.2013 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15283 of 2012.
j) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013, State of Madhya Pradesh has filed the above appeals before this Court.
k) In the meantime, the respondents herein approached the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhindwara for the grant of regular bail. Vide order dated 20.02.2013, the accused persons were enlarged on bail.
4. Heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the appellant-State and Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned counsel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
