TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Anticipatory Bail Applications: Timing and Interim Orders</h1> <h3>Nirbhay Singh And Anr. Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh</h3> Nirbhay Singh And Anr. Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC after issuance of process by Magistrate.2. Legality of interim order restraining arrest under Section 438 CrPC.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 CrPC after Issuance of Process by Magistrate:The primary issue in this case is whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable after a Magistrate has issued process under Section 204 CrPC or at the stage of committal to the Sessions Court. The police initially registered a case against two accused based on the complainant's information and filed a charge-sheet. Subsequently, the complainant filed a private complaint against five additional persons, leading the Magistrate to issue non-bailable warrants against them. Two of these accused then filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.The State contended that anticipatory bail is not maintainable once the Court has taken cognizance or issued process, citing a Rajasthan High Court decision in Rawat Dan v. State of Rajasthan. However, the petitioner argued that other High Courts, including Punjab and Haryana and Andhra Pradesh, have taken a contrary view, supporting the maintainability of such applications even after the issuance of process.The judgment discusses various precedents:- In Rawat Dan v. State of Rajasthan, the Court held that anticipatory bail was not maintainable once the case was committed to the Sessions Court.- Contrarily, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Puran Singh v. Ajit Singh held that anticipatory bail is maintainable irrespective of whether the Magistrate has issued bailable or non-bailable warrants.- The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Sheik Khasim Bi v. State, agreed with the Punjab and Haryana High Court, emphasizing that filing a charge-sheet does not terminate the power under Section 438 CrPC.The judgment also references a decision by this Court in Ramsewak v. State of M.P., which supported the maintainability of anticipatory bail applications even after the issuance of process.The Court analyzed the legislative intent behind Section 438 CrPC, which aims to protect individuals from false accusations and malicious arrests. It concluded that the provision's language does not restrict its applicability to arrests solely by the police and not by a Magistrate's warrant. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 438 is to provide relief to individuals who apprehend arrest on accusations of non-bailable offenses, regardless of the stage of the proceedings.The Court held that anticipatory bail applications are maintainable even after the issuance of process by a Magistrate or during the committal stage to the Sessions Court, if circumstances justify invoking the provision. The Court disagreed with the Rajasthan High Court's restrictive interpretation.2. Legality of Interim Order Restraining Arrest under Section 438 CrPC:The second issue addressed is whether the Court can pass an interim order restraining arrest on an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The judgment refers to a previous decision by a Division Bench (including Bhat, C.J. and Tamaskar, J.) in Misc. Cr. Case No. 4758 of 1993, which held that the Court cannot pass such interim orders.The Court affirmed this view, indicating that interim orders restraining arrest are not permissible under Section 438 CrPC. The provision allows for the imposition of conditions but does not authorize interim relief to prevent arrest.Conclusion:The High Court concluded that:1. An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is maintainable even after a Magistrate has issued process under Section 204 CrPC or at the stage of committal to the Sessions Court.2. The Court cannot pass an interim order restraining arrest under Section 438 CrPC.The matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Single Judge for the disposal of the application.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
