LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Key Takeaways

  • A warrant of arrest was issued and the respondent was accused of absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of a warrant of arrest.
  • The accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed. The high court allowed bail.
  • The appellant argued that the accused avoided arrest and refused to corporate with the investigating agency after a warrant was issued.
  • The court saw that the High Court ignored the relevant aspects of the case and granted bail.

Facts

  • The appellant filed the FIR against the respondent for offences of criminal breach of trust, forgery, and intimidation. A warrant of arrest was issued and the respondent was accused of absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest.
  • The Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation under Section 82 of the CrPC against the respondent for absconding. The accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the trial court, which was dismissed.
  • The accused approached the High Court, although it had been pointed out that since the proclamation under Section 82 has been issued, and the accused should not be allowed anticipatory bail.
  • However, the High court allowed bail. Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the current appeal.

Arguments by the parties

  • The appellant argued that accused avoided arrest and refused to corporate with the investigating agency after the warrant was issued. Trial court considered the charges in detail before rejecting bail, but the High Court has granted by after merely considering the nature of the accusation.
  • The respondent contends that the High Court has not committed any error. Further, the offense of the accused may actually fall under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and not the Penal Code.

Court’s Decision

  • The court noted that there was a prima facie case against the accused.
  • The case of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma is referred to, where it was stated that if anyone is declared an absconder as per section 82 of the CrPC, they are not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.
  • The court saw that the High Court ignored the relevant aspects of the case and granted bail. The specific allegations were not considered. The relevant aspect of grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court, and should have been given serious consideration.
  • The grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court should bequashed and the present appeal allowed.

Questions

  • What is anticipatory Bail?
  • What is the prima facie of a case?

Share your views in the comments section below.

"Loved reading this piece by Rheaa Nair?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"




Tags :

  Views  55  Report



Comments
img
Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query