Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • “The court should not intervene in the case of an accused who refuses to cooperate with the authorities and is on the run.”
  • The above stated observation was made by a bench of Justices M R Shah and A S Bopanna while upholding an Allahabad High Court order denying anticipatory bail.

BACKGROUND

  • Sanatan Pandey, the accused, was charged with violating the Indian Penal Code's Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 308, 504 and 452.
  • In an order dated 10.12.2019, the High Court dismissed his application to quash the charge-sheet in the exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
  • He was then told to appear in front of the court and surrender.
  • He was issued a non-bailable warrant and proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. were started against him because he did not surrender and ask for ordinary bail.
  • His anticipatory bail motion was later denied by the High Court.
  • Mr Pandey contended before the Supreme Court that he had been wrongly accused in the case, that the investigation had been concluded, and that the charge-sheet had been submitted, and thus it was a fit case to grant the applicant anticipatory bail.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

  • "There is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding. Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.", the Supreme court observed.

Do you think that the court is obligated to help/rescue an absconding accused who is not cooperating with the process of investigation? Let us know in the comments below!

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




Tags :

  Views  16  Report



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