Skip to main content

Absconders cannot get anticipatory bail: SC

The Supreme Court on Friday said once a person was declared an absconder by a trial court, higher courts should not grant him anticipatory bail.

"It is a settled position of law that where the accused has been declared an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail," said a bench of Chief Justice P Sathasivam and Justices Ranjana P Desai and Ranjan Gogoi.
One Pradeep Sharma was accused of poisoning to death one Rajesh Singh Thakur because of enmity on account of election to the post of sarpanch in Chhindwara in Madhya Pradesh. Thakur died on September 11, 2011 and the accused fled the area.

However, on August 1, 2012, Sharma moved an anticipatory bail plea before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which was rejected on the ground that custodial interrogation was necessary. On November 21, 2012, arrest warrants were issued against accused Pradeep Sharma, Sudhir Sharma and Naresh Raghuvanshi. As they were not traceable, the trial court declared them proclaimed offenders on November 29, 2012.

However, Pradeep Sharma moved another anticipatory bail application before the HC on January 10 this year and he was granted relief on January 17. In the appeal filed by Madhya Pradesh, senior advocate Vibha Datta Makhija argued that murder charges were filed against the accused and they had been declared absconders. Hence, the HC was not justified in granting anticipatory bail, she said.

Writing the judgment for the bench, CJI Sathasivam said courts should rarely exercise their power to grant anticipatory bail, which should be given only in cases where it is evident that the person has been falsely implicated or he was not likely to misuse his liberty.

After giving this ruling, the bench reversed the HC order and consequently cancelled the bail granted to them by the trial court. The apex court asked the accused to surrender within two weeks.

Article referred: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-12-07/india/44903958_1_anticipatory-bail-pradeep-sharma-trial-court

Comments

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...