SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1984 Supreme(Pat) 408

P.S.SAHAY, R.C.P.SINHA
Kusheshwar Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: M/s Rana Pratap Singh No. 2 & Vivekanand Singh.
For the State: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal.

Judgement Key Points

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Key Points: - The power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438(1) of the CrPC is concurrent between the High Court and the Court of Session. (!) - A rejection of anticipatory bail by the Session Court does not bar a second application in the High Court. (!) (!) - The High Court may grant anticipatory bail after Sessions Court rejection, interpreting the "or" between High Court and Court of Session as permitting either forum. (!) (!) - The case discusses whether a second anticipatory bail filing is maintainable in the High Court after Sessions Court rejection, citing Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and related authorities. (!) (!) - The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail with bond and sureties, directing compliance with Section 438(2). (!)

Question 1?


JUDGMENT :

P. S. Sahay, J. - The short point, which has to be answered in this case, is :

"If any person moves initially to the court of sessions for anticipatory bail under section 438 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the court of Sessions rejects that application on merit, is the second application by the same person for anticipatory bail under section 438 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure maintainable in the High Court."

The learned Single Judge, while hearing this case at the time of admission, had his doubt and, therefore, he has referred the matter to a Division Bench at the stage of admission itself by his ORDER :dated 31.7.1984. In view of the importance of the point involved, the case was admitted on 22.10.1984 and a direction was given that the petitioner shall not be arrested during the pendency of this application.

2. This petitioner is an accused in a case under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and a copy of the first information report has been filed which is Annexure-1. The petitioner had apprehension that he may be arrested and, therefore, he moved thy Sessions Judge on 12.6.1984 and the learned Judge, after hearing the parties, rejected the appl













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top