Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
P. Chidambaram vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 5 September, 2019
[11] Appearing for the State, Mr. S.S. Dey, learned Advocate
General contends that bail stands at the cross road of individual liberty
Page 7 of 10
and social security and a delicate balance is required to be maintained
between the two. Counsel submits that the case diary maintained by
the investigating agency would demonstrate that there are sufficient
prima facie incriminating materials against each of the petitioners and
as such they are debarred from claiming the benefit of custodial
immunity under section 438 Cr.P.C. Learned Advocate General submits
that in the greater interest of society, the safeguard provided under
section 438 Cr.P.C should be denied to the petitioners in the present
case to enable the investigating agency to carry out a free and fair
investigation of the case. Counsel has relied on the decision of the Apex
Court in P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement reported
in (2019) 9 SCC 24 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 72 of the
judgment has held as under:
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 December, 2010
They did not comply with the terms of the said notice.
Argument of learned counsel of the petitioner that they did not report to
the police station in fear of arrest is not acceptable.
[14] Anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extra
ordinary relief. The Apex Court in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 1 SCC
694 has laid down the parameters for granting or refusing the
anticipatory bail which are as under:
Jai Prakash Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr.Etc on 14 March, 2012
[15] Further in Jai Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2012) 4 SCC 379 the Apex Court further elucidated the principles for
consideration of anticipatory bail which are as under:
Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014
[9] Learned P.P appearing for the State respondent vehemently
opposes the bail application. It is contended by Mr. R. Datta, learned
P.P that after the FIR was lodged, the petitioners were served notice
under section 41A Cr.P.C. But none of them complied with the terms of
the said notice. Learned P.P submits that a fair investigation would not
be possible in the case if protection from arrest under section 438
Cr.P.C is granted to the petitioners. Relying on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.
reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 counsel submits that in terms of the
provision laid down under section 41A Cr.P.C as well as observations
made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment, notice under
section 41A Cr.P.C was issued to the petitioners. The petitioners
Page 5 of 10
disregarded the said notice. Their arrest has become necessary since
they did not cooperate with the investigating agency and the materials
available on record against them support the charges brought against
them. Learned P.P submits that chance of success in interrogation of an
accused is remote when the accused knows that he is well protected
and insulated by a pre arrest bail order.