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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...