SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.
State of Haryana - Appellant
Versus
Dharamraj - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2635 of 2023 (@ Out of SLP (Crl.) No.2256 of 2022)
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 437(5) and 439(2) – Cancellation of anticipatory bail – FIR lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342, 427, 186, 353 and 364 of IPC – Liberty is not to be interfered with easily – More so, when an order of pre-arrest bail already stands granted by High Court – Yet, much like bail, grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion – Respondent was a declared proclaimed offender – Such declaration subsisting on the date of impugned Order, it was not proper for High Court to have granted anticipatory bail to respondent – No exceptional situation arises in case at hand – Impugned Order granting anticipatory bail to respondent set aside. (Paras 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal filed by State of Haryana seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to sole respondent by a Single Judge of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Respondent is accused in First Information Report lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 427 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Later, Sections 186, 353 and 364 of IPC were also included.
Findings of Court:
Respondent shall surrender before Court concerned within four weeks from today and may seek regular bail which will be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by present judgment.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal filed by the State of Haryana seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent vide Order dated 03.12.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed in CRM-M No.49115/2021 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent is accused in First Information Report No.0239 dated 31.07.2020 at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Later, Sections 186, 353 and 364 of the IPC were also included.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the background of the nature of the allegations and the materials collected as well as the respondent having been declared a proclaimed offender1[82. Proclamation for person absconding.—(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.
(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows:—
(i) (a) it shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides;
(b) it shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village;
(c) a copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court House;
(ii) the Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.
(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.
(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.
(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).], grant of indulgence under Section 438 2[438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.— (1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:—
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested,
either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided t
Ram Govind Upadhyay v Sudarshan Singh
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee
Mahipal v Rajesh Kumar alias Polia
Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak
XXX v Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab
Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi)
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra
Vipan Kumar Dhir v State of Punjab
Md. Asfak Alam v State of Jharkhand
State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma
Anticipatory bail – Grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with judicial discretion – Anticipatory bail should not be granted to a proclaimed offender.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the gravity of the offences, the conduct of the accused, and the possibility of fleeing from justice in determining the eligib....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the gravity of the offences, the conduct of the accused, and the special provisions for women under the law in determining the....
Anticipatory bail is not maintainable for a proclaimed offender as per the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, 2014(2) SCC 171.
The power to grant pre-arrest bail is extraordinary in nature and can only be granted in exceptional cases. An accused person declared as a proclaimed person under Section 82 of the Code is not entit....
(1) Anticipatory bail – If anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 Cr.P.C., he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.(2) Anticipatory bail – When an app....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.