1. Special leave petition challenging a High Court order refusing anticipatory bail. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 584
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
ASHOK BHUSHAN, DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.
RAJITRAM MOURYA – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s)...../2017(D.No.14826/2017) (Arising out of judgment and order dated 06/12/2016 in M.Cr.C.No.17242/2016 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur)
Decided On : 06-06-2017
The main legal point established is that the petitioner was granted liberty to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court, mentioning all subsequent events, for the High Court to consider and take an appropriate fresh decision.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Special Leave Petition - The court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court, mentioning all subsequent events, for the High Court to consider and take an appropriate fresh decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a special leave petition against the High Court's order declining to grant anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court, mentioning all subsequent events, for the High Court to consider and take an appropriate fresh decision.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail based on subsequent events and payments made.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that although no case was made out to interfere with the impugned order, the petitioner was granted liberty to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court, mentioning all subsequent events, for the High Court to consider and take an appropriate fresh decision.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was disposed of with the granting of liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner submits that regular payments have been made following the filing of an affidavit in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 4 )
3. The court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order but acknowledged the petitioner's liberty to seek fresh relief based on subsequent events. (Para 5 )
4. A petitioner may be granted liberty to file a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court upon the occurrence of subsequent events. (Para 5 )
5. Special leave petition and pending interlocutory applications disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to file a fresh anticipatory bail application before the High Court. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Under what conditions can a petitioner seek a fresh application for anticipatory bail after a previous refusal?
A petitioner may be granted liberty to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court by mentioning all subsequent events, allowing the court to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. (Para 5 )
7. Can subsequent conduct, such as making payments after a bail refusal, be a ground for a fresh bail application?
Yes, subsequent events, such as regular payments made following the filing of an affidavit in Section 482 Cr.P.C. proceedings, can be mentioned in a fresh application for anticipatory bail for the court's consideration. (Para 4 , 5 )
8. Does the court have the power to condone delay in filing a special leave petition?
Yes, the court may condone the delay in filing a special leave petition as part of its procedural discretion. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Delay condoned.
3. The instant special leave petition has been filed against the order dated 06.12.2016, passed by the High Court, declining to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to an affidavit dated 03.04.2017, filed in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and submits that consequent upon the filing of the said affidavit, regular payments have been made.
5. In view of the above, we are of the view that although no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order dated 06.12.2016 yet we grant liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh application for anticipatory bail before the High Court mentioning therein all subsequent events, and it is for the High Court to consider the same and take appropriate fresh decision in accordance with law.
6. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
7. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
