Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the background of the nature of the allegations and the materials collected as well as the respondent having been declared a proclaimed offender, grant of indulgence under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “CrPC”) was erroneous and misplaced. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent, supporting the Impugned Order, submitted that the Investigating Agency has tried to unnecessarily harass and implicate the respondent which would be clear from various manipulations done in the record in the course of investigation. It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/jurisdiction-of-nclt-in-valuation-of-assets-a-case-analysis/
The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail.
The contours of anticipatory bail have been elaborately dealt with by 5-Judge Benches in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1.
In Vipan Kumar Dhir v State of Punjab, (2021) 15 SCC 518, taking note of Dolat Ram ( supra ) and X v State of Telangana ( supra ), the Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to the accused therein. Closer perusal reveals what weighed with the High Court: (a) That the maximum sentence for the offences in the First Information Report did not exceed 7 years.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/unfair-charge-framing-a-legal-analysis/
As things were, the respondent was declared a proclaimed offender on 05.02.2021, and sought anticipatory bail from the High Court only in October, 2021.
The declaration of the respondent as a proclaimed offender, and such declaration subsisting on the date of the Impugned Order, we are unable to agree with the High Court that the respondent was entitled to ‘ reform and course correct ’.
Following Pradeep Sharma ( supra ), in Prem Shankar Prasad v State of Bihar, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955, this Court was unequivocal that the High Court therein erred in granting anticipatory bail ignoring proceedings under Sections 82 and 83, CrPC.
As far as the submission of the State is that the Impugned Order is the basis for co-accused to obtain anticipatory bail, it is for the State to take steps, if so advised, in accordance with law, in that behalf.
Case Title: THE STATE OF HARYANA Vs. DHARAMRAJ
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002635-002635 / 2023
