TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... accused had occurred because the accused was not aware of the said date due to the miscommunication with the then counsel of the accused and when it came to the knowledge of the accused it was impossible for her to appear in the court room as the accused was in Bikaner, Rajasthan as she had some family problems to attend to. 6. That on the next date i.e. 15.11.2019 neither the petitioner nor her surety had the knowledge regarding the NBW against her nor about the date the matter was fixed for hence the non-appearance. The order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P4. 7. That on 25.02.2020 too the Petitioner, still had no idea that the NBW were issued against her. The copy of the order has been annexed herewith as Annexure P5. 8. That on dates 09.06.2020, 10.08.2020, 02.12.2020 & 22.04.2021 due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and the orders of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court the Courts were not functioning hence the appearance of the accused/applicant would have been impossible. The annexures of the above mentioned orders have been annexed herewith as Annexure P6, Annexure P7, Annexure P8 & Annexure P9 respectively. 9. That on the last i.e. 8.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....absconding for more than two years after being declared a proclaimed offender on 23.04.2018. She chose to join investigation only after securing interim bail from the High Court. She kept on hiding from the Investigating Agency as well as Magistrate's Court till she got protection against arrest from the High Court in the 2nd round of bail proceedings. [13]. Even if there was any procedural irregularity in declaring the Respondent Accused as an absconder, that by itself was not a justifiable ground to grant prearrest bail in a case of grave offence save where the High Court on perusal of case diary and other material on record is, prima facie, satisfied that it is a case of false or over exaggerated Such being not the case here, the High Court went on a wrong premise in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Accused. [14]. The ground of parity with co-accused Daksh Adya invoked by the High Court is equally unwarranted. The allegations in the FIR against the Respondent Mother in Law and her younger son Daksh Adya are materially different. It is indubitable that some of the allegations against all the family members are common but there are other specific ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vant observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saran, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application are asunder-Perused the record. The prosecution case as alleged in the typed application of the informant Prem Shankar Prasad is that the informant is a retailer shopkeeper of medicines in the name of Maa Medical Store, Gandhi Chauk, Chapra and the petitioner is his stockiest who runs his business in the name of Rajnish Pharma, Mauna Pakari. The petitioner and the informant were on good terms, so, the informant gave Rs. 36,00,000/- to the petitioner in case and through cheque for purchase of medicine. When the required were not supplied to the informant, the informant demanded his Rs. 36,00,000/- then, the petitioner gave a cheque of Rs. 10,00,000/- bearing cheque no. 137763 dated 25.11.2017 which was in the Canara Bank of the petitioner which was dishonored by the bank with a note "insufficient fund". Thereafter the informant demanded his money in case. On 20.06.18 but, the brothers of the petitioner misbehaved with the informant. The brothers of the petitioner also threatened not to contact the police or the consequences will be worst: On this informant Chapra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e and deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. 15. In the case of Prem Shankar Prasad, the amount involved was huge and conduct of the accused deplorable. After considering the facts of the case in detail, Hon'ble Supreme Court to dismiss the bail. 16. In Balveer Singh Bundela v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 12 May 2020, M.Cr.C. No. 5621/2020, single bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court observed, [29]. In other words if chance of fleeing from justice exists then application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. can be rejected and when a person is declared as proclaimed offender as per Section 82 of Cr.P.C. it means that factor (iii) of Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C. manifested in reality or in other words possibility of applicant to flee from justice converted into reality. To put it differently, Section 82 of Cr.P.C. is manifestation of "Apprehension" as contained in Section 438(1) factor (iii) of Cr.P.C. The judgments pronounced by the Apex Court in the case of Lavesh and Pradeep Sharma (supra) nowhere bar the maintainability of the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in wake of person being declared as absconder under Sections 82 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eem nor overhaul the system. 19. In the present case, the maximum sentence imposable for the offences mentioned in FIR does not exceed seven years. Thus, directions passed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, (Para 13), apply to this petition, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court directed all the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to arrest the accused automatically when the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years; whether with or without fine. 20. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for anticipatory bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 21. In Mahidul Sheikh v. State of Haryana, CRM-33030-2021 in CRA-S-363-2020, decided on 14-01-2022, Para 53, this Court observed, [53]. The pragmatic approach is that while granting bail with sureties, the "Court" and the "Arresting Officer" should give a choice to the accused to either furnish surety bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h the investigator shall hand over the deposit to such court, which shall have a lien over it up to the expiry of the period mentioned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, or until discharged by substitution as the case may be. If any, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. 24. It shall be the total discretion of the applicant to choose between surety bonds and fixed deposits. It shall also be open for the applicant to apply for substitution of fixed deposit with surety bonds and vice-versa. 25. On the reverse page of personal bonds, the attesting officer shall mention the permanent address of the petitioner along with the phone number linked with the AADHAR card, the other phone numbers (if any), and e-mail (if any). In case of any change in the above particulars, the petitioner shall immediately and not later than 30 days from such modification, intimate about the change to the concerned Police Station and the concerned Court. 26. The petitioner to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned Court(s), as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond s....