Gujarat High Court
Ranvir Sinh Jagdish Sinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2844 of 2025
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
=======================================================
RANVIR SINH JAGDISH SINH ZALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL UNWALA, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTH H BHATT(6381) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KHYATI A CHUGH(10132) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the applicant has prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11205032231333/2023 of 2025 registered with Mundra Police Station, for the alleged offences as mentioned in the FIR.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Zal Unwala assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Parth Bhatt for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent - State of Gujarat.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Unwala has referred to the FIR and submitted that so-called incident has occurred on 13.04.2023, for which, FIR has been Page 1 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined lodged on 10.10.2023 and thus, there is gross delay of six months in registering the said FIR and the complainant has failed to explain such delay. He submitted that FIR is lodged against total six accused persons, wherein the applicant is shown as accused no.3 and except the present applicant, other accused were arrested and, thereafter, released on bail by the court concerned. He submitted that in fact, the applicant herein is the Police Officer and on the date of incident, he had acted as per the oral direction issued by his superior officer and with a sole intent to add gravity in the offence, the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act has been invoked. He submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of the FIR, in that event, it would be found out that the present applicant has not received single penny from the complainant and in fact, there is no demand, acceptance and recovery by the present applicant and thus, the applicant is not directly or indirect connected with the alleged commission of crime. He further submitted that in fact, in the present case, the applicant is made scapegoat as there was inimical terms with some higher officers and immediately after registration of the FIR, he was transferred and subsequently, suspended from the services. He submitted that the reason behind implicating the applicant herein in the aforesaid FIR is that he had raised finger Page 2 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined upon the higher-ups. He submitted that there is no dispute about the issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the CrPC and subsequently, the proceeding initiated under Section 82 of the CrPC for proclaimed offender. He, however, submitted that upon coming to know about the issuance of warrant against the applicant, an application came to be preferred for cancellation of such warrant, however, the said application was not entertained by the court concerned, therefore, said orders were assailed by the applicant before this Hon'ble Court by filing Criminal Revision Application No.1760/2024, however, the Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court, by a judgment dated 30.07.2025, rejected the said revision application. He submitted that if the Hon'ble Court would make cursory glance upon the contents of the application, in that event, it is found out that the applicant has been wrongly framed in the present offence and he has been made scapegoat by his higher-ups.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as the present offence is concerned, as stated above, as per the oral instructions of his higher-ups, the applicant had gone to the place of occurrence and because of the serious allegations leveled against the members of the police party, the departmental proceeding had initiated and the applicant had been suspended from the services in his absence. He submitted that in fact, the said Page 3 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined proceedings were proceeded ex parte as because of registration of the FIR, the applicant could not remain present. He submitted that in the operative part of the order of the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer had made observation in a succinct manner stating that the allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, those charges could not have been found out against the applicant and he was suspended from the services on account of his constant absenteeism, copy of said order is placed on record. He further submitted that considering the aforesaid facts, custodial interrogation at this stage is not necessary and the applicant will keep herself available during the course of investigation, trial also and will not flee from justice. He on instructions submitted that the applicant is ready and willing to abide by all the conditions including imposition of conditions while releasing the applicant on anticipatory bail. It is, therefore, urged that that considering the above facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Soni appearing for the respondent - State of Gujarat has opposed the present application with a vehemence and submitted that the applicant is actively involved in commission of crime and his role in the commission of crime is clearly spelt out from the investigation papers collected so Page 4 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined far. He submitted that specific role of the applicant is clearly mentioned in the operative part of the FIR that huge volume of amount has been collected by the members of the police party from the vendor by putting him in danger. He submitted that it is the specific case of the prosecution that all the accused persons (police personnel) had gone to the godown of the complainant and abducted the Manager of the complainant of the godown and kept him in illegal detention, where he was beaten and, thereafter, the complainant was asked to make arrangement of huge amount of Rs.5.00 crores with a sole intent to get out from the criminal liability, otherwise, criminal prosecution will be launched against them and they would have to face the criminal proceedings. He submitted that after registration of the FIR, the investigation was put into motion and during the investigation, the accused persons have been arrested. He submitted that in fact, the statements of certain witnesses have been recorded. He referred to the statement of the Manager of the Godown and submitted that in his statement, he has stated in a very categorical terms that the members of the police party had come to his godown and, thereafter, he was taken to particular place and kept in captivity. He submitted that during the interrogation, the said witness has stated that he will recognize the person, who had come on the date of incident. He Page 5 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined submitted that so far as the applicant is concerned, he is evading his arrest, therefore without securing his presence, his identity would not be disclosed before the witness.
6. Learned APP has also referred to the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and submitted that it is found out from those statements that without getting any prior permission from the higher authority, a raid was carried out and the said act on the part of the applicant itself is illegal one. Not only that, thereafter they had demanded huge volume of amount from the owner of the complainant and during the investigation, certain amount had been recovered by the IO. He also referred to the statements of other co-accused, wherein they have stated in a categorical terms that all the accused had gone to particular place. He submitted that before registration of the FIR, the accused had gone to the court concerned for the purpose of getting permission, however with a sole intent to not to disclose the movement of the applicant, he travelled at those places in his private vehicle.
7. Learned APP submitted that as the applicant was evading his arrest, the concerned Investigating Officer submitted an application under Section 70 of the CrPC for issuance of warrant, wherein the court concerned has taken cognizance and, thereafter, proceeding under Section 82 of the CrPC was also initiated against the applicant for Page 6 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined declaring him as proclaimed offender and the application preferred before this Hon'ble Court challenging the issuance of warrant has also been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. He submitted that the applicant is the Police Officer working in the department but for the reasons best known to him, he has indulged himself into such serious offence and the material collected by the IO during the course of investigation clearly goes on to show the direct involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. He further submitted that in fact, muddamal car used at the time of commission of crime and huge volume of amount i.e. Rs.30,00,000/-, which had come into the share of the applicant, are yet to be recovered. It is, therefore, submitted that the investigation is at crucial stage and the material collected so far suggests the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime, therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. It is, therefore, urged that considering the above facts, discretionary relief may not be granted at this stage the present application may be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and perusing the investigation papers, it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of the Page 7 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Hon'ble Apex Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are (i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicants including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicants by having him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting bail an elaborate examination of evidence and detailed reasons touching the merit of the case, which may prejudice the accused, should be avoided.
9. It is required to be noted that normal procedure prescribed for curtailing the right to life & liberty, is that the investigating officer can arrest the accused even without warrant. No doubt this Court has extraordinary power to protect an innocent person. However, this power has to be exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having considered the allegations leveled in the FIR, it is found out that an FIR came to be registered for the alleged incident alleging inter alia that the accused persons, in connivance with each other, have hatched conspiracy to kidnap the Page 8 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Manager of the Godown, Ashish Patel and as a part of said conspiracy, they had gone there and kidnapped the said Ashish Patel and, thereafter, kept him in illegal detention and demanded ransom, otherwise, he would be involved in false cases and thereby they have received Rs.3,75,00,000/- and committed alleged offences. Further on careful examination of the material available on record, which are supplied by learned APP during the course of hearing, it is found out that there are ample material and evidence collected by the concerned Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, which clearly goes on to show the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime in connivance with other accused persons. It is not in dispute that the applicant is a Police Officer working in the department and it is his duty to protect every citizen, however in the present case, he has indulged into such serious offence of kidnapping and demanded extortion, that too, huge volume of amount and thus, he had acted against his duty. It is also found out from the record that while executing such crime, the applicant has taken due care and caution to protect his skin from disclosing his name in the present offence because instead of travelling in Government vehicle, he travelled in his personal car.
11. It is required to be noted that the FIR is dated 10.10.2023 and we are in the year 2025 and till Page 9 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined date, the applicant is evading his arrest at the hands of the concerned Investigating Officer. It is not that the concerned Investigating Officer has not made his efforts to find out the applicant but it is the applicant, who is evading his arrest for one reason or other. Not only that, to secure the presence of the applicant for the purpose of investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted an application under Section 70 of the CrPC for the purpose of issuance of warrant, wherein the court concerned has passed an order issuing warrant, however, the applicant could not be found out, therefore, the concerned Investigating Officer has submitted an application under Section 82 of the CrPC for declaring the applicant as proclaimed offender, wherein also, the court concerned has passed an order and despite the said fact, the applicant is not yet traceable and he is evading his arrest, which clearly goes on to show the act, conduct and behavior of the applicant.
12. One of the contentions is raised by learned Senior Counsel with regard to the challenge to the proceedings instituted under Section 70 of the CrPC as also under Section 82 of the CrPC by the concerned Investigating Officer before this Hon'le Court, wherein the said petition has been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. In support of the said contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of Page 10 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Asha Dubey Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2024 (4) Crimes 449, more particularly relied upon Paragraph Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8. However, there is no dispute about the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, however, the said decision, in the facts of the present case, is not helpful to the applicant. At this stage, I would like to place reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (0) AIR(SC) 1600, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with similar issue. In the said decision, the applicant concerned had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order rejecting an application for anticipatory bail, wherein also, the proceedings were initiated under Section 70 of the CrPC as also under Section 82 of the CrPC and considering the facts of the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.8 to 11 as under, "8. It is thus obvious from the catena of decisions dealing with bail that even while clarifying that arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to cases where arrest is imperative in the facts and circumstances of a case, the consistent view is that the grant of anticipatory bail shall be restricted to exceptional circumstances. In other words, the position is that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. PC is an exceptional power and should be exercised Page 11 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined only in exceptional cases and not as a matter of course. Its object is to ensure that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. (See the decision of this Court in HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679.
9. When a Court grants anticipatory bail what it actually does is only to make an order that in the event of arrest, the arrestee shall be released on bail, subject to the terms and conditions. Taking note of the fact the said power is to be exercised in exceptional circumstances and that it may cause some hinderance to the normal flow of investigation method when called upon to exercise the power under Section 438, Cr.PC, courts must keep reminded of the position that law aides only the abiding and certainly not its resistant. By saying so, we mean that a person, having subjected to investigation on a serious offence and upon making out a case, is included in a charge sheet or even after filing of a refer report, later, in accordance with law, the Court issues a summons to a person, he is bound to submit himself to the authority of law. It only means that though he will still be at liberty, rather, in his right, to take recourse to the legal remedies available only in accordance with law, but not in its defiance. We will dilate this discussion with reference to the factual matrix of this case. However, we think that before dealing with the same, a small deviation to have a glance at the scope and application of the provisions under Section 82, Cr.PC will not be inappropriate.
10. There can be little doubt with respect to the position that the sine qua non for initiation of an action under Section 82, Page 12 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Cr. PC is prior issuance of warrant of arrest by the Court concerned. In that regard it is relevant to refer to Section 82 (1), Cr. PC, which reads thus: -
"82. Proclamation for person absconding. (1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation."
11. The use of expression 'reason to believe' employed in Section 82 (1) Cr. PC would suggest that the Magistrate concerned must be subjectively satisfied that the person concerned has absconded or has concealed himself. In the context of Section 82, Cr. PC, we will have to understand the importance of the term 'absconded'. Its etymological and ordinary sense is that one who is hiding himself or concealing himself and avoiding arrest. Since the legality of the proceedings under Section 82, Cr. PC is not under challenge, we need not go into that question. As noticed above, the nub of the contentions is that pending the application for pre-arrest bail, proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C., should not have been issued and at any rate, its issuance shall not be a reason for declining to consider such application on merits. Bearing in mind the position of law revealed from the decisions referred to hereinbefore and the positions of law, we will briefly refer to the factual background of the case."
Page 13 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
13. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.17 to 21 as under, "17. Section 70 (2), Cr. PC mandates that every warrant issued under Section 70 (1), Cr. PC shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. In this case, as noticed hereinbefore, the bailable warrants and thereafter the non-bailable warrants, were issued against the appellants. They were neither cancelled by the Trial Court nor they were executed. It is not their case that they have successfully challenged them. Sections 19, 20, 21, 174 and 174 A, IPC assume relevance in this context. They, insofar as relevant read thus:
19. "Judge". The word "Judge" denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or who is one of a body or persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment.
20. "Court of Justice".The words "Court of Justice" denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially.
21. "Public servant".The words "public servant" denote a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter Page 14 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined following, namely:
[Third. Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;]
174. Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public servant.Whoever, being legally bound to attend in person or by an agent at a certain place and time in obedience to a summons, notice, order, or proclamation proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue the same, intentionally omits to attend at that place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, or, if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend in person or by agent in a Court of Justice, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
174A. Non-appearance in response to a proclamation under section 82 of Act 2 of 1974. Whoever fails to appear at the specified place and the specified time as required by a proclamation published under sub-section (1) of section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both, and where a declaration has Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined been made under sub-section (4) of that section pronouncing him as a proclaimed offender, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
18. Taking note of the aforesaid facts with respect to the issuance of summons, warrants and subsequently the proclamation, a conjoint reading of Sections 19, 20 and 21, IPC containing the terms "Judge", "Court of Justice"
and "Public Servant" and Sections 174 and 174A, IPC can make them liable even to face further proceedings. Same is the position in case of non-
attendance in obedience to proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC.
19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid provisions and position, we will refer to certain relevant decisions.
In Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, 2004 SCC OnLine Guj 345 the High Court of Gujarat observed thus: -
"9. Filing of an Anticipatory Bail Application by the petitioners-accused through their advocate cannot be said to be an appearance of the petitioners-accused in a competent Court, so far as proceeding initiated under Section 82/83 of the Code is concerned; otherwise each absconding accused would try to create shelter by filing an Anticipatory Bail Application to avoid obligation to appear before the court and raises the proceeding under Section 83 of the Code claiming that he cannot be termed as an absconder in the eye of law. Physical appearance before the Court is most important, if relevant scheme Page 16 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined of Sections 82 and 83, is read closely." (underline supplied)
20. We are in full agreement with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court that filing of an anticipatory bail through an advocate would not and could not be treated as appearance before a court by a person against whom such proceedings, as mentioned above are instituted. The meaning of the term "absconded" has been dealt by us hereinbefore. We found that its etymological and original sense is that the accused is hiding himself.
What is required as proof for absconding is the evidence to the effect that the person concerned was knowing that he was wanted and also about pendency of warrant of arrest. A detailed discussion is not warranted in this case to understand that the appellants were actually absconding. It is not in dispute that they were served with the "summons". The fact that bailable warrants were issued against them on 12.04.2022 is also not disputed, as the appellants themselves have produced the order whereunder bailable warrants were issued against them. We have already referred to Section 70 (2), Cr. PC which would reveal the position that once a warrant is issued it would remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it or until its execution. There is no case for the appellants that either of such events had occurred in this case to make the warrants unenforceable. They also got no case that their application was interfered with by a higher Court. That apart, it is a fact that the appellants themselves on 23.08.2022, moved a bail-cum-surrender application Page 17 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined before the Trial Court but withdrew the same fearing arrest. It is also relevant to note that in the case on hand even while contending that they were before a Court, the appellants got no case that in terms of the provisions under Section 438 (1-B), Cr. PC an order for their presence before the Court was ordered either suo motu by the Court or on an application by the public prosecutor. When that be the circumstance, the appellants cannot be allowed to contend that they were not hiding or concealing themselves from arrest or that they were not knowing that they were wanted in a Court of law.
21. To understand and consider another contention of the appellants it is worthy to extract ground No.3 raised by the appellants in SLP which reads thus:
"III. Because the Hon'ble High Court has failed to appreciate that proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued on 04.01.2023 by the Ld. Trial Court and thereafter process under section 83 Cr.P.C. have been initiated on 15.03.2023 whereas the application for anticipatory bail by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court was filed in November, 2022, however, the same was came for hearing on 04.04.2023. It is, therefore, evident that when the petitioners preferred filing of anticipatory bail before the Hon'ble High Court then none of the petitioner was declared absconder and process under section 82/83 Cr.P.C. were not initiated against them."Page 18 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined
14. It is to be noted that in number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power and though it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the Court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases, which may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. It is also requried to be noted that in view of aforesaid decision as well as other decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as and when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, in that event, the applicant is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary power and it is not that this will not deprive the power of the Court to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional cases in the interest of justice but here in the present case, as stated above, the applicant is continuously defying orders and keeping himself absconding, therefore, he is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail. The factual narration made hereinbefore would reveal the consistent disobedience of the appellants to comply with the Page 19 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined orders of the trial Court. He failed to appear before the Court concerned after the issuance of the summons. It is not in dispute that the applicant has availed remedy by challenging the orders of issuing warrant but as stated above, the request of the applicant has been turned down. It is a fact that even after coming to know about the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC., he did not take any steps to challenge the same or to enter appearance before the Court concerned to avert the consequences. Such conduct of the applicant in the light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves no hesitation for me to hold he is not entitled to seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
15. It is well settled that an application preferred for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to be granted in exception cases. The parameters and considerations governing the grant of anticipatory bail have been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would like to rely upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC 4198, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held held as follows:
"The legislative intent behind the introduction of Section 438 CrPC is to Page 20 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined safeguard the individual's personal liberty and to protect him from the possibility of being humiliated and from being subjected to unnecessary police custody. However, the court must also keep in view that a criminal offence is not just an offence against an individual rather the larger societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a delicate balance is required to be established between the two rights - safeguarding the personal liberty of an individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. There may be circumstances in which the accused may provide information leading to discovery of material facts and relevant information. Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the investigation. It may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of the investigating agency to interrogate the accused as to the material so far collected and to collect more information which may lead to recovery of relevant information. In this view, it cannot be said that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would amount to denial of the rights conferred upon the appellant/applicant under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Page 21 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined Consequently, power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy".
Having regard to nature of allegations and stage of investigations, held investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom in process of investigation. Appellant not entitled to anticipatory bail as the same would hamper the investigation".
16. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs. State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8 SCC 181, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paragraph No.21, observed as under:-
"21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at safeguarding individual rights. While it Page 22 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined serves as a crucial tool to prevent the misuse of the power of arrest and protects innocent individuals from harassment, it also presents challenges in maintaining a delicate balance between individual rights and the interests of justice. The tight rope we must walk lies in striking a balance between safeguarding individual rights and protecting public interest. While the right to liberty and presumption of innocence are vital, the court must also consider the gravity of the offence, the impact on society, and the need for a fair and free investigation. The court's discretion in weighing these interests in the facts and circumstances of each individual case becomes crucial to ensure a just outcome."
17. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as this application has been preferred under the provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail, I court would like to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, more particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as under :-
"14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When we carefully analyze this section, the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also Page 23 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined pressed in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. Whereas the accusation have been made only with the object to injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case."
18. Thus while taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), I have gone through the contents of the FIR, which is placed on record and also considered the affidavit of the investigating officer filed before the learned Judge concerned opposing the bail application preferred by the applicant. Upon going through the contents of the FIR, it appears that prima facie case is made out against the applicant Page 24 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025 undefined and material collected so far suggests the involvement of the applicant in the commission of crime. Therefore, the present application deserves to be rejected.
19. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case, as have been analyzed hereinabove, there is no ground for interfering with the order of the learned Sessions Court rejecting the application for anticipatory bail. Since his action is nothing short of defying the lawful orders of the Court and attempting to delay the proceedings, this Court does not find any exceptional ground to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the present application seeking for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
20. Needless to say that observations and findings made hereinabove are limited to the decision of these pre-arrest bail applications, and shall not influence any other proceedings arise from impugned FIR.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.) Gautam Page 25 of 25 Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025