Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail in a customs-duty evasion case notwithstanding allegations of absconding and pending investigation.
Analysis: The allegations and the prosecution material indicated that the principal role was attributed to another accused, while the petitioner was not shown to be a proclaimed offender or otherwise unavailable to the court. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to brand him as absconding were not accepted on the record before the Court. Since the main accused was already out of custody and the investigation had not been completed against him, no useful purpose would be served by insisting on the petitioner's custodial arrest. In these circumstances, the protection under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held to be available.
Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail, subject to his joining the investigation and complying with the imposed conditions.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere allegations of absconding do not justify denial of anticipatory bail when the record does not establish that the accused is unavailable to the court and custodial arrest is not shown to be necessary for the investigation.