Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant filed the present application, wherein this Court passed an order on 5 apl 393-2021-J.odt 09/03/2021, admitting the application and recorded the aforesaid contentions raised in the matter pertaining to the scope and amplitude of Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. as applicable to the State of Maharashtra. Interim order was passed in favour of the applicant to the effect that if the Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail application, the interim protection operating in favour of the applicant would continue for a period of 72 hours, to enable him to approach this Court. The complainant filed an intervention application and appeared through counsel. The public Prosecutor represented the State.

8. But, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the applicant in the present case seeks to highlight the plight of an accused when he remains present in the Court at the stage of final hearing of the application for grant of anticipatory bail while interim protection is operating. In the eventuality that the application is rejected upon final hearing, unless protection is extended further for a reasonable period of time to approach the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail, the accused stands exposed to the possibility of arrest. As a result, in the event of his immediate arrest, he is deprived of an 7 apl 393-2021-J.odt opportunity to move the High Court, having the consequence of frustrating the right available under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C. to move the High Court for consideration of his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the Maharashtra Amendment to Section 438 of Cr.P.C., incorporating sub-section (4) therein, ought to be read in such a fashion that it operates in the interest of justice and in the interest of the prosecution as well as the accused. It is submitted that the Court can continue the conditions imposed for grant of interim protection during pendency of the application before the Sessions Court or the Court can impose further conditions also, while extending the interim protection for a reasonable period of time, in the interest of justice. The learned Senior Counsel emphasized that the expression "interest of justice" used in Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C. as applicable to the State of Maharashtra, ought not to be interpreted in a narrow fashion to mean only the interest of prosecution, but also to take care of the interest of the accused.

(iv) the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail :
Provided that where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, considers its expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under sub-section (1), the Court shall indicate therein the date, on which the application for grant of, anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passed on order thereon, as the Court may deem fit; and if the Court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include inter alia the following conditions, namely 13 apl 393-2021-J.odt :-

29. This Court is conscious of the fact that the purpose for which the applicant had challenged the impugned order had served its purpose when interim relief was granted in this application by directing that if the Sessions Court passed any adverse order of rejection of anticipatory bail, the interim pre-arrest protection operating in his favour would continue 30 apl 393-2021-J.odt to operate for a period of 72 hours to enable the applicant to approach this Court. It is undisputed that the application for anticipatory bail of the applicant was finally disposed of and the limited interim relief granted by this Court served the purpose, insofar as applicant before this Court is concerned.