Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.11 It is next submitted that the applicants were expected to cooperate in the investigation appearing before the Investigating Officer on the dates given in the order itself i.e. 13th February and 15th February, 2023, but they failed to abide by the directions of this Court whereas the Investigating Officer waited for them on 13th February, 2023 up till 11:40 p.m. and on 15th February, 2023 up till 11:21 p.m., thus demeanour of the applicants amounts to breach of the order passed by this Court which shows sheer disrespect of the spirit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and also amounts to misuse of liberty, hence the applicants are not entitled to be released on anticipatory bail on this ground itself.

(xii) Filing of F.I.R is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438 and the imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed. Anticipatory bail can be granted even after an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. The provision cannot be invoked after the arrest of an accused. Moreover the salutary provision contained in Section 438 Cr.P.C. were introduced to enable the Court to prevent the deprivation of personal liberty. It cannot be permitted to be jettisoned on technicalities such as the challan having been presented anticipatory bail cannot be granted.

10. In the present case, apart from offences fall amongst other Sections of IPC i.e. Sections 153-A, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, allegation of religious conversion by use of allurement, deception or force involved under Section 3 & 5 (1) of the Act, 2021 is involved. Allegation of conversion is with regard to vulnerable segments of society. The applicants herein are praying for grant of anticipatory bail, thus, before adverting to facts and law settled applicable on the present case, it is apposite to quote Section 438 Cr.P.C.:

92.2. It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the Public Prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail.
92.3. Nothing in Section 438 CrPC, compels or obliges courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc. The courts would be justified -- and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) CrPC [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the State or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.