Read Time: 06 minutes

The Supreme Court today quashed and set aside an order of the Patna High Court whereby anticipatory bail was granted to a person accused for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna remarked that the observations made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to the accused that the nature of accusation was arising out of a business transaction could not be accepted, especially in view of the fact that the accused was a proclaimed offender and absconder.

The Court found that after a warrant of arrest came to be issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran, Chapra, the accused was absconding and concealing himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest.  

In view of this, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had issued a proclamation under Section 82 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) after which the accused filed an anticipatory bail application before the Trial Court.

By a detailed and reasoned order the Trial Court dismissed the said anticipatory bail application on merits as well as on the ground that the accused was absconding.

The accused then approached the High Court where ignoring the fact that the process of proclamation under Sections 82 & 83 CrPC had already been issued, the High Court allowed the   said anticipatory bail.

The court found that specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by the Additional Sessions Judge were not considered by the High Court at all. 

“Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under Sections 82-­83 of CrPC by simply observing, “be that as it may””, the Bench found.

It was thus noted such relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually.

The Bench further remarked,

“What is required to be considered is the nature of allegation and the accusation and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent No.2 ­ accused has been charge­sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420, etc. and a charge­sheet has been filed in the court of learned Magistrate Court.”

Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order granting anticipatory bail to the accused was held to be un­sustainable.

The Court has thus granted two weeks’ time to the accused to surrender before the Trial Court after which it would be open for accused to pray for regular bail.

Cause Title: Prem Shankar Prasad vs The State of Bihar & Anr.