9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Sections 496, 497, and 498 Cr. P.C. to persons who have not been arrested but apprehend arrest. Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Sections 496, 497, and 498 Cr. P.C. to persons who have not been arrested but apprehend arrest: This reference arises from a revision petition against an order dated 21st September 1962, where the Additional District Magistrate of Seoni upheld the anticipatory bail granted to Narayan Prasad Jaiswal by the First Class Magistrate, Seoni. The case was registered for offences under Sections 324, 452, 294, and 506 (second part) I.P.C. based on a report by Komal Singh. The First Class Magistrate, after reviewing the police diary, noted that it was premature to conclude the specific offence for which Narayan Prasad would be charge-sheeted. He observed that the accused could at most be guilty of offences under Sections 324 and 294 I.P.C., which are bailable. Consequently, he granted bail of Rs. 500/- with one solvent security in the same amount. The State contested this decision, arguing that anticipatory bail could not be granted and, even if permissible, there were no valid grounds for it. The Additional District Magistrate, however, upheld the bail, referring to the decision in Abdul Karim Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1960 Madh Pra 54, which allowed anticipatory bail in suitable cases. Upon hearing the revision petition, it was noted that conflicting views existed within the court regarding anticipatory bail, necessitating an authoritative determination by a Division Bench. The primary question was whether bail could be granted to persons who had not been arrested but feared arrest. The State's contention was that none of the Sections 496, 497, and 498 allowed bail for persons not under arrest or custody. They argued that the term 'bail' implied substituting the custody of the detaining authority with that of the surety, and voluntary appearance in court did not empower the court to grant anticipatory bail. The argument was supported by several precedents, including Mohd. Abbas v. Crown AIR 1950 Sind 19 and State v. Dallu Punja AIR 1954 MP 113. On the other hand, the counsel for Narayan Prasad argued that the wording of Sections 496, 497, and 498 permitted the court to grant bail to a person accused or suspected of an offence, even if not arrested, provided they appeared voluntarily. They contended that the 1955 amendment to Section 497, which added "or suspected of the commission," was intended to enable anticipatory bail. They also referred to the decision in The State of M.P. v. Bhagwat Sao, Cr. R. No. 271 of 1961, which supported this view. The court examined the provisions of Sections 496, 497, and 498 in detail. Section 496 pertains to bailable offences, allowing bail when a person is arrested or detained without a warrant or appears before the court. Section 497 deals with non-bailable offences, giving the court discretion to grant bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is guilty of a grave offence. Section 498 provides the High Court and Sessions Court with wide powers to grant bail, fix the amount of bond, and reduce bail required by a police officer or magistrate. The court emphasized that the term 'bail' implied release from legal custody, and the appearance of a person in court did not equate to being in custody. It was noted that the word 'appears' in Sections 496 and 497 referred to persons required to surrender to custody under an order of arrest, not free individuals fearing arrest. The court concluded that anticipatory bail could not be granted to a free person, as it would interfere with police functions and was not supported by the statutory provisions. The court also reviewed various judicial opinions, noting that the majority view opposed anticipatory bail for persons not under arrest. It disagreed with the Lahore High Court's decision in Hidayatullah v. The Crown AIR 1949 Lah 77, which allowed anticipatory bail, and instead supported the view that bail required the person to be in custody or required to surrender to custody. In conclusion, the court held that under Sections 496, 497, and 498 of the Cr. P.C., bail could not be granted to a person who had not been arrested or required to surrender to custody but merely apprehended arrest. The case was referred back to the learned Single Judge for disposal based on this determination.
|
