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

2020 Supreme(HP) 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Freed - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
CRMPM No.944 to 952 2020
Decided On : 06-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Kush Sharma and Mr. Gobind Korla, Advocates. for the Appellant; Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with Mr. Shiv Pal Manhans & Mr. Hemant Vaid, Additional Advocates General. for the Respondent

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Bail applications dismissed except for one petitioner - Allegations of involvement in a communal incident involving multiple grievous injuries - Necessity for custodial interrogation emphasized for the investigation's progress - Essential for courts to apply their discretion based on the facts and evidence presented. (Paras 60, 56)

(B) Under Section 438, the court must evaluate the possibility of misuse of anticipatory bail and weigh the rights of personal liberty against public interest.

(C) The Court distinguished between anticipatory bail and regular bail under Sections 437 and 439, emphasizing differing factors for each. (Paras 52, 59)

Facts of the case:
The case involves an incident where multiple individuals were allegedly beaten, resulting in grievous injuries to a complainant. The accused claimed political motivations behind the accusations, and there were communal tensions in the area, affecting both parties. (Paras 1, 23, 49)

Findings of Court:
Notably, the Court found that anticipatory bail was justified for one petitioner based on insufficient evidence to substantiate claims against him. The remaining petitioners did not qualify due to the serious nature of the charges and requirement for custodial interrogation. (Paras 56, 60)

Issues: The key issues involved whether the allegations were politically motivated and if anticipatory bail should be granted given the severity of the allegations and the communal context. (Paras 48, 62)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court articulated that claims for anticipatory bail must be supported by detailed facts justifying the apprehension of arrest and emphasized the need for careful balance between personal liberty and public safety during investigation. (Paras 56, 61)

Result: Petitions for anticipatory bail were dismissed except for one individual who was granted bail under conditions. (Para 60)

Table of Content
1. introduction and historical context of anticipatory bail (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. rights and principles governing anticipatory bail (Para 8 , 17 , 18)
3. judicial precedents and interpretation of anticipatory bail provisions (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. factual circumstances and injuries related to the case (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. arguments presented by the petitioners and their defenses (Para 38 , 40 , 41 , 44 , 46)
6. court's conclusions and reasoning for bail decisions (Para 49 , 50 , 55 , 60)

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - These bail applications, filed by petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'), seeking anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest, in case FIR No.78 of 2020, dated 22.6.2020, registered, under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, 307 & 341 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , in Police Station Majra, District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh, adjudicated on the basis of common record and submissions, are being decided together by this common judgment.

2. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C, as existing on date, reads as under:

"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 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.

(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.

(IB) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks 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 arres

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top