Anticipatory bail cannot rest on a false claim of pending revision after criminal proceedings have reached finality.

Anticipatory bail is not available where the accused's conviction and sentence have already attained finality and the plea is founded on an incorrect assertion that a revision is still pending. The document notes that the prosecution had passed through trial, appeal, and revision, with only the default sentence set aside, and that no revision was pending when the non-bailable warrant was sought. On that record, the request for anticipatory bail could not be sustained because relief cannot rest on a factual premise contrary to the case record.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail could be granted where the conviction and sentence in the underlying prosecution had already attained finality and the petition rested on an incorrect assertion that the revision was pending.

Analysis: The matter arose after the accused had been convicted under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the conviction had been confirmed in appeal, and the criminal revision had already been disposed of, with only the default sentence set aside. On the date the complainant sought issuance of a non-bailable warrant, no revision was pending before the High Court. The petition for anticipatory bail proceeded on the contrary factual basis that the revision was still pending. In that situation, the Court held that the prosecution had crossed the stages of trial, appeal, and revision and had reached finality, leaving no basis to invoke anticipatory bail for the stated purpose.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was not warranted and the petition was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The application failed on the footing that the relevant criminal proceedings had already concluded and the contrary representation could not sustain relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail cannot be granted on a premise that is contrary to the record when the underlying criminal proceedings have already attained finality.

---