Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. That first information report came to be filed by the appellant herein against respondent No.2 with Chapra Town Police Station, Saran in case No.453 of 2018 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 407, 468, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A warrant of arrest came to be issued by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra on 19.12.2018. It appears that thereafter respondent No.2 – accused is absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest. Thereafter learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued a proclamation against respondent No.2 under section 82 Cr.PC. Only thereafter and issuance of proclamation under section 82 Cr.PC, respondent No.2 – accused filed anticipatory bail application before learned Trial Court. By a detailed order dated 29.01.2019 the learned Trial Court dismissed the said anticipatory bail application and rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail on merits as well as on the ground that as the accused is absconding and even the proceedings under section 82/83 Cr.PC have been issued, the accused is not entitled to the anticipatory bail. That thereafter the accused approached the High Court by way of present  application and despite the fact that it was specifically pointed to the High Court that since the process of proclamation under section 82 & 83 Cr.PC have been issued, the accused should not be allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail, ignoring the aforesaid relevant aspect, by the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the said anticipatory bail by observing that in the event of his arrest/surrender within six weeks in the Court below, he may be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/­ with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra and subject to the conditions as laid­ down under section 438 (2) of Cr.PC.

4.2 It is submitted that though the factum of initiation of proceedings under Section 82­83 of Cr.PC was pointed out, the High Court has simply ignored the same.

4.3 It is further submitted that even the High Court has not at all considered the seriousness of the offences alleged namely the offences under sections 406, 420 of IPC, which were in detail considered by the learned Trial Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail application.

4.4 It is submitted that the High Court has granted the anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 solely observing that the nature of accusation arising out of a business transaction. It is submitted  that merely because it was a business transaction, without further considering the nature of allegations the High Court ought not to have granted the anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused.

From perusal of the case record I find that the informant has alleged to have given a sum of Rs. 36,00,000/­ to this petitioner in order to supply certain medicines which was neither supplied nor the amount was ever refunded. Admittedly, the said amount was given to the petitioner on an oral undertaking as there is nothing on record to substantiate the aforesaid averments, but, the fact remains that the petitioner in order to refund the  said amount has issued a cheque of Rs.10,00,000/­ bearing cheque no. 137763 dated 25.11.2017 which was deposed by the informant in the bank, but, the same was dishonored with record I further find that the petitioner is in the habit of borrowing money from different persons and then used to make default in payment inasmuch as by issuing cheques without sufficient balance in his account which transpires form paras 38 and 39 of the case diary.” 7.2 Despite the above observations on merits and despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No.2 – accused is absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82­83 of Cr.PC have been initiated as far as back on 10.01.2019, the High Court has just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and has granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused by observing that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82­83 of Cr.PC by simply observing that “be that as it may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not  to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually. 7.3 In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma (Supra), it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of Cr.PC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail. In paragraph 14 to 16, it is observed and held as under:­ “14. In order to answer the above question, it is desirable to refer to Section 438 of the Code which reads as under:

16. Recently, in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2012) 8 SCC 730] , this Court (of which both of us were parties) considered the scope of granting relief under Section 438 vis­à­vis a person who was declared as an absconder or proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code. In para 12, this Court held as under : (SCC p. 733) “12. From these materials and information, it is clear that the present appellant was not available for interrogation and investigation and was declared as ‘absconder’. Normally, when the accused is ‘absconding’ and declared as a ‘proclaimed offender’, there is no question of granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.” It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”  Thus the High court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused ignoring the proceedings under Section 82­83 of Cr.PC.