The factors to be considered in granting anticipatory bail are: * The likelihood of the accused absconding or misusing his liberty * The nature and seriousness of the accusations * The nature of the prosecution evidence * The severity of the likely punishment in case the prosecution succeeds * The status of the accused.

Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 438 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - GRANT OF - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED - LIKELIHOOD OF ACCUSED ABSCONDING OR MISUSING LIBERTY - NATURE AND SERIOUSNESS OF ACCUSATIONS - NATURE OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE - SEVERITY OF LIKELY PUNISHMENT - STATUS OF ACCUSED.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was accused of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. He filed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner challenged this order in the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. The Court considered the following factors in reaching its decision: * The likelihood of the accused absconding or misusing his liberty * The nature and seriousness of the accusations * The nature of the prosecution evidence * The severity of the likely punishment in case the prosecution succeeds * The status of the accused
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. 2. The factors to be considered in granting anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail because: * There was no likelihood of the accused absconding or misusing his liberty. * The prosecution evidence was weak. * The accused was a respected member of the community with no prior criminal record. * The severity of the likely punishment was not a factor in this case.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge and granted the petitioner anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT-The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence punishable under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code by the Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station Parli-Vaijnath, District Beed, on May 27,1981 on a report by complainant Hiralal Chunnilal Sarda, a resident of Parli- Vaijanath, Taluka Ambejogai, District Beed, contending that he had entrusted about 163 tolas of gold ornaments on account of mutual intimate relationship for the purpose of safe custody to the petitioner. These ornaments belonged to the complainant's wife, son-in-law Narsingdas Maniyar from Gangakhed and relation Chandulal Nawandar from Govardhan. They were entrusted to the petitioner for safe custody on March 5, 1981 in the persence of two witnesses, being Chandulal Nawandar and Khushalchand Gatagat. It was on May IS, 1981 that the complainant was called by the petitioner accused and told that all the ornaments kept by him were stolen. Upon hearing this, it is alleged, complainant Hiralal told the petitioner-accused to make a report to the Police Station. According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused admitted the entrustment of the ornaments in the presence of Hiralal S/o Pakshitam. Baburao s/o Atoba Sangai, Dhondiram, s/o Shrikisan and Murlidhar s/o Girdharilal as well as Some other people from Parli Town. The petitioner-accused having refused to file a report of the alleged theft, complainant Hiralal filed a report alleging criminal breach of trust with the Police Station on .he basis of which Crime No. 66 of 1981 was registered.

2. The petitioner accused filed an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for an anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Beed, vide Misc. Criminal Petition No. 92 of 1981. By his decision dated June 3, 1981, the learned Additional Sessions judge was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner-accused and to cancel the ad interim anticipatory bail which was granted to him earlier. In order to enable the petitioner to bring bail from the High Court, the interim bail was extended upto June 8, 1981.

3. The petitioner-accused bas alleged that there was enmity between him and the complainant on account of certain election disputes. It is an admitted position that upon search of the house of the petitioner, nothing incriminating was found. So far as the alleged enmity between the petitioner-accused and complainant Hiralal is concerned, the petitioner alleges as under:-

"There was an election of the Directors of Vaijanath Co-operative Bank about 3/4 years back. There was tussle between the petitioner and the complainant for the past of Ii director. Complainant at that time had tried to persuade the petitioner not to stand for the election. The petitioner refused to agree with him. It is from that time though the complainant wan election by 5 votes, the said complainant has a grudge against the petitioner. And due to that and some other disputes and differences, the facts of which are not relevant at this stage, he has been using the police machinery and the process of criminal law to harass the petitioner."

The petitioner bas further alleged that there are three banks at Parli Vaijanath having locker facilities and complainant Hiralal himself has got a locker in Vaijanath Bank. The ornaments in question were worth mare than Rs. 2 lacs and, according to the petitioner, it is unimaginable that complainant Hiralal having the locker facility with Vaijanath Bank would entrust the ornaments to him.

4. So far as the status of the petitioner-accused in the society is concerned, it is alleged that he was the Chairman .of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Parli Vaijanath, for three years. At the time when the application for anticipatory bail was failed, he was occupying the position of a Special Executive Magistrate. He also happens to be the Member of the Executive Committee of the Marathwada Merchants and Traders Association, Bombay, and the Member of the Executive Committee of the Jawahar Educati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1981 Supreme(Bom) 144

Login now and unlock premium legal research