Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC13 Sept 2024ABAIL/9109/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the applicant's second anticipatory bail application, holding that the arguments relied upon pertained to regular bail standards rather than the specific considerations for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶25

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"."

Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Susheela Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up

Avnish vs State of U.P. and Another

Anuj Jawla @ Anuj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Susheela Devi vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P.

Rohit Kumar Yadav vs State of Up

Avnish vs State of U.P. and Another

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Vikas Kumar Singh vs State of Up