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

2017 Supreme(Del) 3566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VINOD GOEL, J.
Sunil - Petitioner
Versus
State - Respondent
Bail Appln. 1614 Of 2017
Decided On : 13-10-2017

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pranay Abhishek, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Chadha, APP with ASI Ram Kumar, PS Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi

The court emphasized the exceptional nature of the power to grant anticipatory bail and the restriction on extending this benefit to persons declared as Proclaimed Offenders.

Headnote:

Anticipatory Bail - Theft - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC) Section 438 - Section 438 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.PC relating to grant of bail to a person apprehending arrest and highlighted the extraordinary nature of the power exercisable, to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to misuse his liberty. The court also referenced the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, which held that the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be extended to a person who has been absconding and declared as a Proclaimed Offender.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in a theft case where he was accused of being involved in stealing gold jewellery from an innocent passenger at a railway station.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no justification for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, considering the need for custodial interrogation to recover the stolen gold jewellery and the fact that he had been declared a Proclaimed Offender by the competent court.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted anticipatory bail in a theft case where he was accused of being involved in stealing gold jewellery from an innocent passenger at a railway station.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.PC, which highlighted the extraordinary nature of the power exercisable for granting anticipatory bail and the case law precedent that the benefit of anticipatory bail should not be extended to a person who has been declared as a Proclaimed Offender.

Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VINOG GOEL, J.

1. Apprehending his arrest in a case registered vide FIR No. 0267/2015 dated 14.04.2015 under Section 379 IPC, PS RMD Main (ODRS), District Crime & Railways, Delhi, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘Cr.PC’)

2. Status report has been filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that the name of the petitioner has figured only in the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

4. Per contra, learned APP vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that huge amounts of jewellery belonging to an innocent passenger was stolen at the Old Delhi Railway Station, who was coming from Dehradun by the Mussoorie Express. While the said train crossed the Shahdara Railway Station, one person offered her help in taking out her luggage near the gate of the coach as Old Delhi Railway Station was approaching near. The victim declined the offer but later she agreed to shift her luggage/suit case in the corridor and in the meantime 7-8 persons assembled near the suit case and she told them that she did not need their help as her brother was coming to receive her at Old Delhi Railway Station. Meanwhile all of them fled from the coach through the adjoining coach. On reaching home, the victim found that several valuable items and gold ornaments were missing from her suit case/luggage. Description of missing items is given in the status report. Immediately, the complainant/victim came to PS Old Delhi Railway Station along with the written complaint.

5. During investigation three persons namely (1) Sandeep Kumar, R/o; Village Orang Nagar, PS Bhiwani Khera, District Bhiwani, Haryana, (2) Ajay @ Tinu and (3) Sunny, both resident of Village Manoharpur, P.S. Jind, District Jind, Haryana were arrested on 13.06.2015 and during their sustained interrogation, they disclosed the name of the petitioner and one Vinod, both resident of Village Orang Nagar, P.S. Bhiwani Khera, District Bhiwani, Haryana, being involved with them in the present theft case. On 30.05.2017, even the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner and Vinod by the learned MM and on 15.09.2017, they have been declared Proclaimed Offenders.

6. Before considering the claim of the petitioner it would be useful to refer to Section 438 of Cr.PC relating to grant of bail to a person, who is apprehending arrest, which reads as under: -

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; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including- (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be





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
whatsapp-icon Back to top