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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...