Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

With these observations, the special leave petitions stand disposed of."

The aforesaid order was made by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 5.12.2013.

4) When the time of 18 days i.e. up to 23.12.2013 was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to respondents to move Sessions Court for getting regular bail, the applications were moved by both the respondents under sections 439 of Cr.P.C. on 17.12.2013. On 17.12.2013 itself these respondents prayed for interim regular bail. The learned APP requested for time.

Prosecutor wanted to take instruction to file say. On the first day i.e. on 17.12.2013 itself, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed order of interim nature. He has mentioned that no say was filed by APP, there was no possibility of abscondance of the accused and there was the direction of the Apex Court to surrender and to apply for regular bail. By making such Cri. Appln. No. 905 & 906/14 observations, interim relief was granted. Following is the operative order made on interim application by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

9) The learned counsel for original complainant, present applicant submitted that due to misinterpretation of the orders made by this Court and Hon'ble Apex Court and due to misuse of Cri. Appln. No. 905 & 906/14 the interim orders, the interest of public at large is getting affected and the orders of the subordinate judiciary are creating bad image for it. He submitted that after getting interim anticipatory bail in a proceeding filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., the accused is produced before the police, formal arrest is shown and bonds are given in the police station. He submitted that after doing this exercise, the main application filed for anticipatory bail is withdrawn. He submitted that as the bonds are given, representation is made that the accused is released on regular bail. He submitted that many times after getting interim relief or final relief in a proceeding filed under section 438 of Cr.P.C., application is moved before the Magistrate and the bonds are given. He submitted that in such cases, when the higher Court sets aside the orders of anticipatory bail, these orders are challenged in Apex Court and submissions are made that regular bail was already granted. He submitted that even in High Court, submissions are made by making use of aforesaid circumstances that cancellation of anticipatory bail has become meaningless as regular bail is granted by J.M.F.C. He submitted that when anticipatory bail is granted, in view of provisions of section 438 (3), the Magistrate does not grant regular bail, but it is only compliance of order made under section 438 (1) of Cr.P.C.