IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
Sobran Batham - Petitioners
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondents
MCRC 4357 of 2017
Decided On : 02-05-2017
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - CRIMINAL LAW - The court held that the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed and warrants are issued against the accused, as per the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma. The court emphasized that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to misuse his liberty.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed for anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case registered against him. The State raised a preliminary objection citing the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, stating that the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed and the accused is shown to be absconding.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed and warrants are issued against the accused, as per the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma. The court also emphasized that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the application for anticipatory bail after the charge-sheet is filed and the accused is shown to be absconding.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable after the charge-sheet is filed and warrants are issued against the accused, as per the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma. The court emphasized that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is to be exercised only in exceptional cases.
Final Decision: The application for anticipatory bail was dismissed as not maintainable.
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA, J.
1. This application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail.
The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 142/2016 registered by Police Station Gijaurra, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 327, 323, 294, 506-B, 34, 329 of IPC.
It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the co-accused person has been granted bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
A preliminary objection has been raised by the State counsel that the police has filed the charge-sheet against the applicant showing him to be absconding and, therefore, in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171: [2013] 8 Supreme 699., the present application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
2. Refuting to the submissions made by the counsel for the State, it is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that in the case of Pradeep Sharma (supra) the proceedings under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. were already initiated, therefore, it was held that the application for grant of anticipatory bail is not maintainable but in the present case, there is nothing on record 10 show that any proclamations requiring the appearance of the applicant under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. has been issued. Therefore, the law laid clown by the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma (supra), would not apply.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. So far as the question of maintainability of anticipatory bail after the filing of the charge-sheet in absence of the applicant is concerned, the Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Sharma (supra) has held as under:-
""14. In order to answer the above question, it is desirable to refer Section 438 of the Code which 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 nor. passed any interim order under this subsection or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in charge of a police station to MCRC. 4357/2017 arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application."
The above provision makes it clear that the power exercisable under Section 438 of the Code is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that 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 otherwise misuse his liberty.""
Referring to the facts of the said case, it was held by the Supreme Court that the warrants of "arrest were issued against the respondents therein and when they could not be traced, a proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. was issued.
4. In the opinion of this Court, the issuance of proclamation under -Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is not very material but in fact the spirit of the law is that if a person is absconding and is running away from the law enforcement ag
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.