- “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.
- 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.
- "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!