Second anticipatory bail application in a case under Sections 306, 385, 504, 506 IPC; charge sheet already filed. The court held that arguments suited to regular bail cannot be raised under Section 438 Cr.P.C., noting distinct considerations for anticipatory bail, and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:121515
Court No. - 68
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6821 of 2024
Applicant :- Chanda @ Reshma Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kumar Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
application on the ground that there is no provision of second anticipatory bail application to be granted, as such, the applicant is not entitled for bail. The arguments tendered at Bar pertain to regular bail application and cannot be agitated u/s 438 Cr.P.C.
"19. It is apposite to mention here the distinction between the considerations which guide the grant of anticipatory bail and regular bail. In Pokar Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (1985) 2 SCC 597 , while setting aside an order granting anticipatory bail, this Court observed:
5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. Three situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned Judge in the High Court unfortunately fell into an error in mixing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation.
6. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 clearly lays down that "the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest". Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under Section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by Section 46(1) or confinement. In para 31, Chandrachud, C.J. clearly demarcated the distinction between
the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and an application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. It was observed that "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, and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond". Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are "the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and 'the larger interests 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". A caution was voiced that "in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it"."
Order Date :- 30.7.2024 Shalini
(Justice Krishan Pahal)
Digitally signed by :- SHALINI JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable after the first was dismissed as infructuous during investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satpal Singh vs. State of PunjabRelied on
(2018) 13 SCC 813 · Who else cites this
Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on
(2023) 8 SCC 181 · Who else cites this
Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla Vs. Smt. Anita Agarwal & othersRelied on
Criminal Appeal Nos.872-873 of 2020
Pokar Ram vs. State of RajasthanReferred
(1985) 2 SCC 597 · Who else cites this
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of PunjabReferred
(1980) 2 SCC 565 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chanda @ Reshma
State of U.P.
Krishan Pahal
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
