Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

.

(iii) The police after completion of investigation, submitted Final Form under sections sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 506 of the I.P.C. against the petitioners.

(iv) The learned court below took cognizance of the offence under sections sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307, 506 of the I.P.C.

(v) The court below has not cancelled the bail of the petitioners granted earlier by the court below till date in terms of Section 446A of the Cr.P.C., nor has passed any order in terms of provision of Section 436(2) Cr.P.C.

In this case, after perusal of record, it appears that question of law as to whether anticipatory bail is maintainable or not was not decided by the court below and the prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected by the court below on other grounds.

The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in "Dinesh Kumar Vs. The State of Jharkhand" reported in 2011 (3) JLJR 253 wherein the Hon'ble Single Bench has held as under:

"5. I have gone through the documents placed before me. Since the petitioner had appeared before the Police and he was on Police bail and even after submission of charge-sheet only notice has been issued for securing his appearance, I do not feel that present anticipatory bail application is maintainable. If the petitioner was previously on bail, only because cognizance has been taken for the offences which are non-billable, bail should not be refused, if he appears before the Court after receiving notice or summon. At this juncture, I also intend to mention another aspect in which the accused persons are released on bail under Section 436 Code of Criminal Procedure in a case registered for bailable offence and subsequently if charge-sheet is submitted against them for non-bailable offences and on being summoned, if they appear before the Court, bail should not be refused or cancelled only because cognizance has been taken under non-bailable Sections."
4. On considering the relevant provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court is of the opinion that had the F.IR been only for bailable offences and had the petitioner been granted benefit of bail by the police for bailable offences only under the provisions of Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the matter could have stood on different footing. On account of offence being treated as non-bailable at the later stage due to subsequent developments, may be an application for anticipatory bail could have been found maintainable. However, in the present case which is falling for consideration this Court is of the view that since the case was initially for non-bailable offences wherein the petitioner was taken into custody and then released on bail by the police, an application for anticipatory bail on the ground that he has an apprehension of arrest in the same case cannot be held to be maintainable.

CHAPTER XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides PROVISIONS AS TO BAIL AND BONDS.

Section 436 Cr.P.C provides that in what cases bail is to be taken. Section 436(1)CR.P.C reads as under;

" 436 (1)-When any person other than a person accused of a non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at any time while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceeding before such Court to give bail, such persons shall be released on bail."