- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mahendra Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar .
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. P.C). The Sessions Court rejected this application on the basis that the FIR involved non-bailable offences under Sections 364, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the investigation, the petitioner was taken into custody and subsequently granted police bail under Section 437(2) of the Cr. P.C. The police submitted a chargesheet only for bailable offences, but the learned Magistrate took cognizance of non-bailable offences as well. The petitioner apprehended arrest and custody due to this development and sought anticipatory bail.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C is maintainable when the FIR initially involves non-bailable offences and the petitioner has already been granted police bail under Section 437(2) Cr. P.C?
- Whether apprehension of arrest arising from subsequent cognizance of non-bailable offences justifies entertaining an anticipatory bail application?
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The police submitted a chargesheet only for bailable offences.
- The learned Magistrate took cognizance of non-bailable offences contrary to the police's opinion.
- Due to this divergence, the petitioner fears arrest and custody.
- Therefore, the petitioner contended that the anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr. P.C should be entertained.
State's Arguments
- This information was not available in the provided opinion.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It observed that if the FIR had been exclusively for bailable offences and the petitioner had been granted police bail under Section 436 Cr. P.C, the situation would have been different. However, since the FIR initially involved non-bailable offences and the petitioner was taken into custody before being granted police bail under Section 437(2) Cr. P.C, the Court held that an anticipatory bail application based on apprehension of arrest in the same case is not maintainable. The Court emphasized that mere subsequent treatment of the offence as non-bailable does not justify anticipatory bail where police bail was already granted. The petitioner was directed to honor the terms of police bail and appear before the Court without delay. If the petitioner appears within six weeks, the lower Court shall consider his bail application according to established principles, notably that a person already on bail should not be denied bail without allegations of misuse.
Holding and Implications
The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. P.C is dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioner must comply with the police bail conditions and appear before the trial Court promptly. If the petitioner appears within six weeks, the trial Court is obliged to consider the bail application in accordance with law and established principles favoring bail for persons already on bail. This decision directly affects the petitioner’s bail status but does not establish any new legal precedent.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. It appears from the impugned order of the Sessions Court that petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail U/S. 438 of the Cr. P.C was rejected on the ground that it is not maintainable because according to the FIR a case U/Ss-364, 323, 307/34 of the IPC which are non-bailable offences, was instituted against the accused persons including the petitioner and it further appears that in course of the investigation petitioner was taken into custody by the police and then granted benefit of police bail under the provisions of Section 437(2) of the Cr. P.C
3. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that after investigation police submitted chargesheet only for bailable offences and the learned Magistrate has differed with the opinion of the police and taken cognizance also for non-bailable offences and hence petitioner has apprehended danger of arrest and custody and therefore anticipatory bail application should be entertained by the Court under the provisions of Section 438 Cr. P.C
4. On considering the relevant provision in the Code of Criminal Procedures, this Court is of the opinion that had the FIR been only for bailable offences and had the petitioner been granted benefit of bail by the police for bailable offences only under the provisions of Section 436 of the Cr. P.C the matter could have stood on different footing.
5. On account of offence being treated as non-bailable at the later stage due to subsequent developments, may be an application for anticipatory bail could have been found maintainable. However, in the present case which is falling for consideration this Court is of the view that since the case was initially for non-bailable offences wherein the petitioner was taken into custody and then released on bail by the police, an application for anticipatory bail on the ground that he has an apprehension of arrest in the same case cannot be held to be maintainable.
6. In the facts of the case, petitioner must honour the terms of police bail and appear before the Court without any delay. In case, petitioner appears before the Court below within six weeks then the Court below shall consider his prayer for bail in accordance with law keeping in view the well established principle that a person who is already on bail shall not be denied such privilege unless there is any allegations of misuse etc. With this observation this application for anticipatory bail is disposed of.
Alert