Anticipatory bail declined after charge-sheet, cognizance, and repeated non-appearance despite warrants in a corruption allegation.

Anticipatory bail was declined where investigation had concluded, the charge-sheet had been filed, and cognizance had already been taken, yet the accused failed to appear despite repeated bailable and non-bailable warrants. The Court treated the seriousness of the allegations, including a demand for bribe, the applicant's position as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, and recovery of the alleged bribe from a co-accused as relevant factors. On that record, the Court held that the applicant's conduct and the gravity of the accusations did not justify exercise of discretionary protection from arrest, and anticipatory bail was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an accused facing allegations under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, where charge-sheet had been filed, cognizance taken, and the accused had not appeared despite issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrants.

Analysis: The record showed that investigation had been completed and charge-sheet submitted. Cognizance had been taken, but the applicant had not appeared before the court despite repeated process, including bailable and non-bailable warrants. The Court also noted the seriousness of the allegations, including demand of bribe, the applicant's position as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, and the recovery of the alleged bribe amount from a co-accused. In these circumstances, and having regard to the applicant's conduct, the Court found that the case did not justify exercise of the discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was refused.

---