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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more