Orissa High Court
State vs Jagannath Swain on 13 January, 1970
Equivalent citations: 1971CRILJ572
ORDER
1. This Revision Application directed against the order dated 8.867 passed 'by the B. D.O. Magistrate, First Class, Sadar, Cuttack, granting anticipatory bail to the opposite party in G. R. Case No. 1313/1699 T/67 of 1967. The State of Orissa has filed this revision application on the allegation that there was no formal warrant of arrest issued against the opposite party. As such by merely appearing before the learned Magistrate the opposite party could not obtain an order for anticipatory bail.
2. Mr. Rahenoma, appearing for the opposite party, contends that this application has become anfractuous inasmuch as the case in question has now been woodlouse. Mr. Ramdas, appearing for the State, however, wants me to decide the question as to whether anticipatory bail can be granted in law. There was no consensus of judicial opinion on this point. Majority of the High Courts, however, had supported the view that there Wa3 no provision for any anticipatory bail. Reference may be made to A.I.R. 1950 E P 53 (FB), (Amir Chand v. Crown A.I.R. 1954 Madh B 113 (FB), State v. Dallu Punia , Juhar Mal v. State , Amjad v. State , Public Prosecutor v. Manikya Rao State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Prasad A.I.R. 1966 Mys 71, State of Mysore v. Baswanth Rao and , Pulinthanam v. :State.
Some deoisions have also taken a contrary view, such as A.I.R. 1952 Madh B 161, State v. Mangilal and , Abdul Karim Khan v. State of M. P. But the point has reoently been decided by the Supreme court and their Lordships have taken the view that there is no provision for any anticipatory bail within the home work of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view of the opinion of the majority of the High Courts as approved by the Supreme Court correctly represents the law. :This revision is disposed of accordingly.