Project on


School of Law and Governance

Submitted To: DHRAMPAL SIR Submitted By: karni Pratap Singh VII Semester

.What is Anticipatory Bail? Anticipatory bail -a term not found in any Indian legislation. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. he shall be released on bail. Having said that. and that court may. including (i) A condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer and when required. anticipatory bail can only be invoked if a person is apprehending arrest for a non-bailable offence (as under s. (iii) A condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. What is the law concerning Anticipatory Bail? The provisions concerning anticipatory bail are to be found in section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The section is reproduced as follows: “438. threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub.refers to a prearrest order passed by a court that says that in the event a person is arrested. as it may thinks fit. The ‘anticipatory’ labelling of the order can be misleading as it is not an order which grants a person bail before he is arrested as bail cannot come into effect before a person is arrested. direct that in the even of such arrest. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code). A non-bailable offence is one for which the police if not empowered to release the arrested person on bail (except under certain special circumstance not dealt with here).section (1). as if the bail were granted -under that section. it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case. (ii) A condition that the person shall not. In India. if it thinks fit. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation. 1973. (iv) Such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437.. and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail. he is to be granted bail. directly or indirectly. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest. the fundamental difference between an order for bail and one for anticipatory bail is that the former is granted only after arrest (and becomes operative subsequently) but the latter is granted before arrest and hence is operative from themoment of arrest.make any inducement. he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for direction under this section.

bail granted under s. The Police to grant bail if the arrested person is arrested without warrant. 1989 and the Defence of India Rules. 438(2) (i). How to obtain an Anticipatory Bail? One can avail the provisions of s. If an application in the Sessions Court is rejected. The provisions of s. but not vice versa. he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the court under sub-section (1). ii. It is important to note that the attendance of the person apprehending arrest is compulsory at the final hearing. 438 may be cancelled at any time if the investigation is hampered or if a condition under the order is violated by the arrested person. the person may file the same in the High Court. It is given in those circumstances when the court believes that there is a possibility that the accused has been falsely implicated and that his freedom will not hamper the investigation of the crime. Having said that. 1971. and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person. 438 can attach certain riders to it. 438(2) (ii). 438 are normally refused to those accused of particularly heinous offences like murder and rape. it is . These include: For offences/contraventions under certain specific statutes like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.” Sub-section (1) of section 438 mainly talks about what anticipatory bail is. The application may be preferred to the relevant court in whose jurisdiction the accused was purported to commit the offence or the jurisdiction in which the arrested person apprehends arrest. 438 by filing an application for the same in the High Court or Sessions Court. The magistrate to issue a bailable warrant (in light of an anticipatory bail order) When can an Anticipatory bail be granted? It can be given when a person apprehends arrest for a non-bailable offence (refer to the First Schedule of CrPC for the list of offences labelled thus).  he shall be released on bail. When can an Anticipatory bail be not granted? There are certain circumstances where applications for anticipatory bail are normally refused. These are listed out as ss. The format of the application for anticipatory bail can be observed in the following samples: It is important to note that when a person is accused of many offences. who can apply for it (those apprehending arrest for non-bailable offences) and who is to be applied to (the Court of Sessions or the High Court) Sub-section (2) talks about how the Court issuing an order under s. 438(2) (iii) and 438(2) (iv). Sub-section (3) empowers: i.

he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the court granting anticipatory bail. he shall be released on bail and the magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that warrant should be issued against that person. b. a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required. as it may think fit.  possible that the court may grant bail under s. a condition that the person shall not. Anticipatory Bail Not A Blanket Order The applicant must show by disclosing special facts and events that he has reason to believe. c. 498 of the Indian Penal Code. The main factors considered while granting prayers for anticipatory bail are that: The full and free investigation of the offence should not be hampered. Nowadays. What is the need for such a provision? The main objective behind such a provision is to prevent those falsely implicated in criminal cases to be subject to jail-time. that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence so thatthe court may take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective and it is not a blanket order covering all other offences . including: a. make any inducement. Conditions That May Be Imposed By The Court The high court or the court of session may include such conditions in the light of the facts of the particular case. directly or indirectly. and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail. 438 only to some of those which leaves the door open for the party to be arrested under the others. Arrest If such person is thereafter arrested. a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court. . The accused must not be subject to harassment and unjustified detention. Anticipatory Bail is an important tool in fighting wrongful accusations under s. threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.

These criminal petitions have been referred to this Bench todecide "whether filing of the charge sheet or issurance of warrant by a Magistrate would put an end to the power under Section 438 Cr. The High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and commit him to custody on an application moved by the complainant or the prosecution.C. S Bannurmath ORDER Bannurmath. 1. By Kadugodi . In this regard. CASE LAWS Venkatachalaiah And Ors. 2003 Equivalent citations: ILR 2003 KAR 3985. EBENEZER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. J. 3.P.. the learned Judge after interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC vs STATE OF PUNJAB. applicable after filing of a final report and grant of anticipatory bail in such a situation is only a redundant effort. on 22 July. 2003 (6) KarLJ 261 Bench: A Farooq. The learned Judge on consideration of the rival contentions held that " In the back drop of the object and purpose of the provisions of anticipatory bail." As this view has been doubted by Hon'ble Mrs. A. she referred these petitions for consideration of the aforesaid question. 1303.C. . the right of accused to seek anticipatory bail gets extinguished. In the case of Dr.P. the petitioner had approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr. Hon'ble Mr.. 1986(2) Cri.P. vs State Of Karnataka. challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 317 Cr.C. . Justice Sreedhar Rao held that after filing of a charge sheet. Ebenezer. In the said case of Dr. and issuing NBW against him. Justice Manjula Chellur.C.P. ILR 2002 KAR 5003. to grant anticipatory bail?" 2. it does not really warrant to make the provision of Section 438 Cr.Cancellation An accused is free on bail as long as the same is not cancelled.disagreed with the view expressed by Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of SHEIKH KASHIM BI vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.J.L.

To understand the law regarding anticipatory bail we have to look into the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 41st Report introducing the provision of Section 438 Cr. Further. The initial order should only be an interim one. 6. We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners.C. though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised. Apart from false cases where there is reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond. the final order should be made only after notice to the public prosecutor. and if the Court is satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interests of justice". 5. Now. therefore. what it does is to make an order that in the event of arrest. 7. It is not as if bail is presently granted by the Court in anticipation of arrest. AIR 1977 SC 366 the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the first time had occasion to examine and propound the scope and ambit of Section 438 Cr. as well as various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. This is substantially in accordance with the recommendations made by the previous Commission (41st Report). it is pointed out thus: "The necessity for grant of the anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate the rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. with the accentuation of political rivalry. In that case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus" "We do not find in this section the words `anticipatory bail'.C. In the case of BALCHAND JAIN vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. this power of granting . We agree that this would be a useful addition. Commenting on this provision in the Draft Bill. the LawCommission observed in Paragraph 31 of its 48th Report thus: "The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This recommendation of the Law Commission was accepted by the Central Government and Clause 447 was introduced in the Draft Bill of the new code of Criminal Procedure conferring an express power on a Court of Sessions or a High Court to grant `anticipatory bail'. When the Court grants `anticipatory bail'. a person shall be released on bail. `anticipatory bail' is a misnomer.4.P." and thus the Law Commission recommended acceptance of the provision for grant of `anticipatory bail'. In fact.P. In the 41st Report of the Law Commission. there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody. the relevant section should make it clear that the direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded. In the recent times. or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail. but that is clearly the subject with which the Section deals. remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. Manifestly there is no question of release on bail unless a person is arrested and. it is only on arrest that the order granting "anticipatory bail" becomes operative.

And this power being rather of an unusual nature. or `there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond. that it would be difficult to enumerate the conditions under which anticipatory bail should or should not be granted and secondly. namely. a Court of Sessions and the High Court.C. because of the 41st Report of the Law Commission which. It is a power exercisable in case of an anticipated accusation of non-bailable offence and there is no limitation as to the category of non-bailable offence in respect of which the power can be exercised by the appropriate court. adequate data is available to the Court. in so far as one may.`anticipatory bail' is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated. it is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service. because the intention was to allow the higher courts in the echelon a some what free hand in the grant of relief in the nature of anticipatory bail. That is why. The legislature conferred a wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail because it evidently felt. firstly. the stage at which anticipatory bail is generally sought brings about its striking dissimilarity with the situation in which a person who is arrested for the commission of a non-bailable offence asks for bail. said in paragraph 29. That is the stage at which it is imperative to protect his freedom.9. or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail' that such power is to be exercised. the applicant shall be released on bail. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the GurbakshSingh's case (cited supra) again considered the scope of Section 438 Cr. The Supreme Court observed thus: "Advisedly. modify it by the imposition of all or any of the conditions mentioned in Section . Section 438(1) uses the language that the High Court or the Court of Sessions `may. and to given full play to the presumption that he is innocent. It has to be borne in mind that anticipatory bail is sought when there is a mere apprehension of arrest on the accusation that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence. if it thinks fit' direct that the applicant be released on bail. In fact. since the discretion was being conferred upon superior courts which were expected to exercise it judicially.. or can be called for by it. In the latter situation. at least in part.P. It is an application on an apprehension of arrest that invites the exercise of the power under Section 438. that it had `considered carefully the question of laying downin the statute certain conditions under which alone anticipatory bail could be granted' but had come to the conclusion that the question of granting such bail should be left `to the discretion of the Court' and ought not to be fettered by the statutory provision itself.. Now Section 438 contemplates an application to be made by a person who apprehends that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. while pointing out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code enabling the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. A person who has yet to lose his freedom by being arrested asks for freedom in the event of arrest. or a frivolous case might be launched against him. the direction that may be given under Section 438 is that in the event of his arrest. departing from the term of Sections 437 and 439. in the light of which it can grant or refuse relief and while granting it. And on such an application. (emphasis is supplied) 8.

1985 Cri. BIMALADAK AND OTHERS vs STATE.L. whether prior to or after filing of charge-sheet. However. 1969 (Cal.C. 1992 Cri. KAMALAKAR RAO vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH.J. HEMANTA KUMAR NAYAK AND OTHERS vs STATE OF ORISSA. & Har." 10.C) 5. 1815 (Cal. 1996 SCC (Cri) 198 it is laid down thus: " It is necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily after the expiry of that duration or extended duration. in the following decisions it is held that under Section 438 Cr. SHEIK KHASIM BI vs THE STATE. A.) 2.L.C.) 3. 2373 (Bom. 1975 Cri. F. PURAM SINGH vs AJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER." (emphasis supplied) 9. 897(Pun.L.)(DB) 2. H. 1. 1997 Cri. L.J.J.L.C. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case SALAUDDINABDULSAMAD SHAIKA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 cannot be invoked. 1983 Cri.. 2002 Cri.J.e. 3267 (Orissa H. 11.L.) and 6.B .C.C. i. The order of anticipatory bail does not ensure till the end of trial but it must be limited duration as the regular Court cannot be by -passed. .C.C. SMT. DR. H.J. the Court grating anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court. There is no restriction as to the stage at which the prayer for anticipatory bail is made. to deal with the matter on appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress.) 12. SIDHARTHA PATRA vs REPUBLIC OF INDIA.) 4. AMBALAL PUNAMCHAND RASHAMWALA vs STATE OF MAHARASHTR. H.J.H. 2354 (Orissa H. 872 (AP H.J.P. or the charge-sheet is submitted.437. A few of these decisions which restrict the invoking of Section 438 jurisdiction prior to filing of the charged-sheet are as follows: In re PURANA CHANDRA CHATTERJE. 2000 Cri. L. Applying and practically interpreting these principles variousHigh Courts have either held that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time irrespective of filing of charge-sheet or not and in many cases it is laid down that after filing of the charge-sheet or issuance of warrants by the Court.

These very decisions indicate that in most of the cases the Courts have relied upon Clause (3) of Section 438 Cr.C. 16.C.P. 1997 Cri. PATEL vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.H. In our considered view in most of the first set of casesmentioned above the High Courts have mainly relied upon the wordings `reason to believe' and interpreting the same it is held that the expression `reasonable belief' fosters a belief of genuine apprehension of arrest on an allegation which prima facie is unsubstantiated and made with sinister motive. 1762 (Mad H. NIRBHAY SINGH AND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. 15.P.C.J. it would reveal that an applicant who prays for release on bail in an anticipation of his arrest must show the following: a) He must be having a reasonable apprehension that in case he is not granted an order of anticipatory bail. the right to be enlarged on anticipatory bail if allowed to remain alive even after the submission of the charge sheet.V.) We have perused these decisions in detail.C) (D. A close scrutiny of the relevant provisions of law regarding bail and especially anticipatory bail. he is going to be arrested. It is without any strings or fetters attached to it except those referred to above.L.J. the object being to malign a person where his arrest by prosecuting agency is immediate than remote.J. 16. According to these decisions.) can be granted only after the arrest. NATTURASU AND OTHERS vs THE STATE. restrictions and .B) 4.) and 6.C. 13. when a non-bailable offence has been committed by an accused. The legislature in its wisdom has chosen not to impose any sort of checks. such `reason to believe' or apprehension of arrest can never be used by any individual to cultivate his right when he is prima facie liable for accusation and does not commensurate with his innocence and as such as the reasonable belief cannot be a colourable belief. NARASIMHA RAO vs STATE(CBI). 1995 Cri.C. 3969 (Bom H.B) 5. 1998 Cri.3.P. To grant anticipatory bail is of an extraordinary character in as such as the bail (under Section 439 Cr. 14. It is of a wider amplitude. b) There must have been levelled against him an accusation of commission of a non-bailable offence. 961 (Del.)(F.L.L. whereas an order of anticipatory bail is to be granted before a person is arrested.J. 1998 Cri. AKHALAQ AHMED F.P.L. c) He must not have been arrested before his moving an application for grant of anticipatory bail. It is crystal clear that the power under Section 438 Cr. P.C. To hold that the power under Section 438 does not survive the limitation after filing charge-sheet and issue of arrest warrant. Section 437 would be the vanishing point of existing Code of Criminal Procedure.H. 3317 (M.

" 17. 20.9 of the 41st Report of the Law Commission it is opined thus: "We considered carefully the question of laying down in the statute certain conditions under which alone anticipatory bail could be granted. The Law Commission did not do so because it reposed confidence on the Courts. The Courts are not permitted to weave a new texture replacing the original one. undoubtedly. Admittedly. that means. in Gurbaksh Singh's case (cited supra) it is observed thus: . In this regard the argument of the State is that once charge-sheet is filed and warrant is issued. It must be remembered that this extraordinary power has been granted only to Superior Courts like the Sessions Court or the High Court. Thus. Hence we would leave it to the discretion of the Court and prefer not to fetter such discretion in the statutory provision itself. the intention of the legislature was to make it possible to the Courts to grant bail in anticipation of the arrest in those case where a citizen approaches the Court with an apprehension of being arrested. in case certain fetters. the words "reason to believe" are to be read in a wider sense. in that eventually the very purpose of the granting of the powers was likely to be defeated. The Courts are not there to legislate and to tread into the legislature's territory. In fact as noted earlier in para 39. This aspect is clear from the proposal of the Law Commission while recommending introduction of provisions of anticipatory bail. restraints and checks were put. In our view. As such in our view would it be improper to read into the Section something which is not proper? It is well settled principle of law that while interpreting a provision. according to the Law Commission.impediments in the way of the Courts to grant the relief of anticipatory bail in the case where the Courts come to the conclusion that it is a fit case for them to do so. As noted earlier. and moreover. Superior Courts will. But we found that it may not be practicable to exhaustively enumerate those conditions. Further more. as the power is well being given only to Superior Courts like the Court of Sessions or the High Court. which is presided over by much experienced judges. the matter has reached a stage where the arrest is certainty and as such there is no question of the person having still only "reason to believe". the laying down of such conditions may be construed as prejudging (partially at any rate) the whole case. subsequently on giving a careful consideration to the facts and circumstances dropped the said idea and left it completely to the discretion and wisdom of the Courts. and not make any observations in the order granting anticipatory bail which will have a tendency to prejudice the fair trail of the accused. Thus it is clear from the proposal of the Law Commissionthat though initially it thought of imposing certain checks and restrictions on the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail. the Court has to interpret it as it is and not as it ought to be or as the Court thinks it should be. however. exercise their discretion properly. it is amply clear that the legislature in its wisdomthought it fit that it is not proper to impose any condition on the power of the Courts to grant anticipatory bail. They will be free to do so without any hindrance. 18. 19.

Considering the several rulings cited before us. though. Mere `fear' is not `believe'. a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial. In regard to anticipatory bail. but also he can move the Courts under Section 438(1) Cr.. it is so clearthat the issue of bail is one of the personal liberties of an accused or convict and it is a fundamental right of every citizen to be free unless he is detained under any law enacted by Parliament. if it appears on considering the antecedents of the applicant that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice. it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence.. The use of the expression `reason to believe' shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges. the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested. for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague expression that some one is going to make an accusation against him. There are several other considerations too numerous to enumerate. that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict and any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively."The applicant must show that he has `reason to believe' that he may be arrested for a nonbailable offence. 22. the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further heldin Gurbaksh Singh's case (cited supra) thus: ". if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some other ulterior motive. the combined effect of which must weigh with the Court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges." 21. a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and `the larger interest of the public or the State' are some of the considerations which the Court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. such an order would not be made. because it is then alone that the Court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State vs Captain Jagjit Singh which.P. in pursuance of which he may be arrested.C. was a case under the old . The question as to whether bail to be granted or not depends upon a variety of circumstances. Hence filing of a charge-sheet and the issuance of warrant are certainly the grounds which make the person not only to believe that he would be arrested. As such in our view the apprehension of the applicantbecomes certain that he would be arrested once a charge-sheet is filed or warrant is issued by the Magistrate... In this regard. a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made and on the other hand. 23. and equally.

A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom. have worked satisfactorily. in respect of matters covered by the order. especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom. in addition. directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. (ii) and (iii). to take a statute as one finds it on the grounds that. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom. If they err.Section 498 which corresponds to the present Section 439 of the Code. therefore. in our view. by the acceptance of conditions which the Court may think fit to impose. may be the . as granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in Section 438(2)(i). after all `the legislature in its wisdom' has thought it fit to use a particular expression. is concerned. while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held in the same case: "We would.C. the same is not connected with the powers under Sub-Section (1) of Section 438 and it makes only a provision for a situation only after anticipatory bail is granted under Section 438(1). A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence.P. directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F. in consideration of the assurance that if arrested. causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interence with the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various Courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438(1) of the Code. by laying down inflexible rules of general application." Again it is held in the above case: "During the last couple of years this Court. These orders. In a given case. The end of justice will be better served by trusting these Courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognized over the years. but on the other hand it only contains the procedural aspect that is necessary to give effect to the order of an anticipatory bail passed under Sub-Section (1) of Section 438 and the manner in which it would be given effect to. in their long training and experience. the Court has.R. does not in any manner restrict the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail.P.C. he shall be enlarged on bail. As such it is to be held that Sub-Section (3) of Section 438 Cr. on the whole. It is customary." 24. they are ideally suited to do. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them." 25. The Court has. they are liable to be corrected. In certain exceptional cases. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police.I. In so far as the relevancy of Section 438(3) Cr. prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which. almost chronic. in view of the material placed before it.

we hold that the law laid down in thecase Dr. 26.P. Ebenezer's case (cited supra) is not a good law.C. A. . the Court in such circumstances issues non-bailable warrant and the said warrant issued is in view of the defaulting conduct on the part of the accused and we are of the view that in such cases a petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438(1) Cr. However. For the reasons stated above. In consequence.P.P.C. the remedy under Section 438(1) Cr. 27. In so far as the case where the accused appears once before the Court and thereafter on account of his absence on any later date warrant is issued by the Court for the deliberate absence is concerned.P.P.C. Therefore. but the mere non-exercise of such power does not mean lack of jurisdiction. and he is bound to obey the Court order or warrant by first appearing before the Court and than by satisfying the Court as to the sufficient cause for his absence. pray for bail under Section 439 Cr. We would like to state that in the normal course where warrant is issued in pursuance of filing charge-sheet or issuance of summons and non-appearance of the party. EBENEZER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA(ILR 2002 Karnataka 5003) is no more a good law. is available. For all the aforesaid reasons we hold that filing of chargesheet by the police does not put an end to the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438(1) Cr. the view taken by the learned Single Judge in Dr.C.C.C. the remedy of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. This takes us to the next question as to whether on an issuance of warrant by the Magistrate.High Court or the Court of Session would not be inclined to grant bail keeping in view of the fact that Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued process. we answer the reference asfollows: The filing of the charge sheet or the issuance of warrant by Magistrate cannot put an end to the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr. we would like to emphasis that where in a criminal proceeding a party has already appeared once or more than one date and thereafter does not appear in the Court. 29. 28.P. can a person approach the Court under Section 438(1) Cr. is not available to such person.C.P.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful