9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1442X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eates any riders nor imposes any restrictions in the filing of anticipatory bails by the proclaimed offenders. Even in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), while laying down the law on anticipatory bails to absconders, Hon'ble Supreme Court structured the pronouncement by the words, Normally. An analysis of entire allegations creates a possibility of the accused - Resultantly, the facts and circumstances are not normal. Thus, the circumstances cannot be termed as normal for the accused, and she makes out a special case for bail. A balanced approach would work as an incentive, a catalyst for proclaimed offenders to surrender to the Court of Law, speeding up the process, and bringing the guilty to Justice and Justice to the guilty. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in ARNESH KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR ANR [ 2014 (7) TMI 1143 - SUPREME COURT] , apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be les ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... W against her nor about the date the matter was fixed for hence the non-appearance. The order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P4. 7. That on 25.02.2020 too the Petitioner, still had no idea that the NBW were issued against her. The copy of the order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P5. 8. That on dates 09.06.2020, 10.08.2020, 02.12.2020 22.04.2021 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the orders of Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court the Courts were not functioning hence the appearance of the accused/applicant would have been impossible. The annexures of the above mentioned orders have been annexed herewith as Annexure P6, Annexure P7, Annexure P8 Annexure P9 respectively. 9. That on the last i.e. 8.09.2021 the applicant though of no knowledge about the station the applicant was also down with fever and hence traveling for 600 Kms from Bikaner, Rajasthan to Chandigarh in fever would have been a mammoth task. The copy of the order has been annexed herewith as annexure Annexure P10. 10. That it was after this date i.e. 8.09.2021 the accused when enquired about her case got information and the seriousness of the case and hence the bail application is being filed by the Accused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of grave offence save where the High Court on perusal of case diary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or over exaggerated Such being not the case here, the High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Accused. [14]. The ground of parity with co-accused Daksh Adya invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent Mother in Law and her younger son Daksh Adya are materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other specific allegations accusing the Respondent Accused of playing a key role in the alleged offence. The conduct of the Respondent Accused in absconding for more than two years without any justifiable reason should have weighed in mind while granting her any discretionary These facts put her on a starkly different pedestal than the co-accused with whom she seeks parity. We are, thus, of the considered view that the High Court has wrongly accorded the benefit of parity in favour of the Respondent Accused. It has to be borne in mind that the deceased met with a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in case and through cheque for purchase of medicine. When the required were not supplied to the informant, the informant demanded his Rs. 36,00,000/- then, the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- bearing cheque no. 137763 dated 25.11.2017 which was in the Canara Bank of the petitioner which was dishonored by the bank with a note insufficient fund . Thereafter the informant demanded his money in case. On 20.06.18 but, the brothers of the petitioner misbehaved with the informant. The brothers of the petitioner also threatened not to contact the police or the consequences will be worst: On this informant Chapra Town PS No. 453/2018 was registered and investigation proceeded. -xxx- ...Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [ (2012) 8 SCC 730], this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis- -vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 733) 12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as absconder ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er as per Section 82 of Cr.P.C. it means that factor (iii) of Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C. manifested in reality or in other words possibility of applicant to flee from justice converted into reality. To put it differently, Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is manifestation of Apprehension as contained in Section 438(1) factor (iii) of Cr.P.C. The judgments pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh and Pradeep Sharma (supra) nowhere bar the maintainability of the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in wake of person being declared as absconder under Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. and understandably so because this would not have been in consonance with letter and spirit of Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court pronounced in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia etc. (supra) and Sushila Aggarwal and others (supra) as well as two Judge Bench of Apex Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and another (supra) as well as Ravindra Saxena (supra) because these judgments categorically held that anticipatory bail is maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet and till the person is not arrested. [33]. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if the police authority has decla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 21. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the Court and the Arresting Officer should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bonds or to handover a fixed deposit, or direct electronic money transfer where such facility is available, or creating a lien over his bank account. The accused should also have a further option to switch between the modes. The option lies with the accused to choose between the sureties and deposits and not with the Court or the arresting officer. 22. Given above, In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the case mentioned above, subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. Ten Thousand only (INR 10,000/-), and furnishing one surety for Rs. Twenty-Five thousand only (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator. Be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ermanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number linked with the AADHAR card, the other phone numbers (if any), and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned Police Station and the concerned Court. 26. The petitioner to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s), as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the following and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of this bail order. 27. The bail bonds shall continue to remain in force throughout the trial and after that in terms of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 28. Any Advocate for the petitioner and the Officer in whose presence the petitioner puts signatures on personal bonds shall explain all conditions of this bail order in any language that the petitioner understands. 29. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 30. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
