High Court of Judicature at Bombay
MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.
Shrenik Jayantilal Jain & Another
Versus
The State of Maharashtra through EOW Unit II
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 541 of 2014
Decided on : 08-05-2014
Anticipatory Bail - Interpretation of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Act 24 of 1993, Section 438 - The court discussed the interpretation of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and whether the Sessions Court or the High Court has the power to adjourn an application for anticipatory bail without granting interim protection. The court analyzed the language and provisions of section 438 and considered the recommendations of the Law Commission, ultimately concluding that the court may either pass an interim order, reject the application forthwith, or adjourn the matter for a short period without passing any order.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant sought interim bail pending the final decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application 754 of 2014, which was pending before the Sessions Court. The question of law arose regarding the power of the Sessions Court or the High Court to adjourn an application for anticipatory bail without granting interim protection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the language of section 438 provides the court with the discretion to either reject the application forthwith, issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail, or adjourn the matter for a short period without passing any order. The court also considered the purpose of the provision, the recommendations of the Law Commission, and the object and spirit of section 438.
Issues: The main issue was whether the court has the power to adjourn an application for anticipatory bail without granting interim protection, as provided under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the language and provisions of section 438 allow the court to adjourn the matter for a short period without passing any order, in addition to the options of passing an interim order or rejecting the application forthwith.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the application and extended the interim protection until the final hearing of the application, which was fixed before the Sessions Court. The court expected the Sessions Court to decide the application finally on the specified date.
1. The learned Sessions Judge of Greater Mumbai, pending hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application before it, refused to grant interim protection by its order dated 19th April, 2014. Hence, this application is preferred seeking interim bail, till the final decision on the Anticipatory Bail Application 754 of 2014, which is pending before the learned Sessions Judge.
2. In the course of submissions, the following proposition was made:
“When an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 is preferred, the Sessions Court or the High Court shall either reject the said application forthwith or issue an interim order in respect of anticipatory bail. No third option is open to the Court to adjourn the application without granting any interim relief to the applicant/accused”.
3. This proposition or the interpretation of section 438 of the Code by the learned Counsel for the applicants gave rise to the question of law as follows:
Whether the Sessions Court or the High Court, while entertaining an application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has a power to adjourn the said application without granting interim protection in favour of the applicant/accused or not?
4. Before dealing with the legal submissions of the learned Counsel, it is to be noted that section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was enacted by the State of Maharashtra vide Act 24 of 1993 w.e.f. 28.7.1993, thereby with provision of grant of interim relief under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 438 in the Central Act was also amended in 2005, however, the amendment is not yet notified. The section 438 in Maharashtra amendment is hereby reproduced as follows:
“438 Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.-
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an 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:-
(i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a court previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested, and
(iv) the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice, either reject the application forth with or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, consider it expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1), the court shall indicate therein the date, on which the application for grant of, anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order thereon, as the court may deem fit; and if the court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include inter alia the following conditions, namely:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(iii) That the ap
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.