Bombay High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Applicant Not Named in FIR in Murder Case. Applicant Alleged Illegal Detention and Bribe Demand by Investigating Officer Under Section 438 CrPC.

High Court: Bombay High Court In Favour of Accused
  • 109
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The applicant, Sureshkumar Ishwarlal Chordiya, filed an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. I-81 of 2004 registered at Kasa Police Station, Thane, for the murder of Lahanya. The incident occurred on the night of 30th and 31st August 2004. The FIR named accused No.1 Ladkya and three others, but did not mention the applicant. The applicant was called to the police station on 5th December 2004 for interrogation and was detained from 6th December 2004 till the morning of 7th December 2004. He alleged that the investigating officer, Shri Irgonda S. Patil, demanded a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- for his release, which was paid by his wife through Roshanlal Chunilal Jain @ Babu Bobda. The court considered that the applicant was not named in the FIR and there was no material to connect him with the offence. The court also noted the applicant's allegations of illegal detention and bribe demand. The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, directing that in the event of arrest, he be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- and one surety of the like amount.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 - Applicant not named in FIR - Court granted anticipatory bail considering that the applicant was not named in the FIR and there was no material to connect him with the offence, and the applicant alleged illegal detention and demand for bribe by the investigating officer (Paras 2-4).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to an applicant who is not named in the FIR and who alleges illegal detention and demand for bribe by the investigating officer.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the application and granted anticipatory bail to the applicant. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15,000/- and one surety of the like amount.

Law Points

  • Anticipatory bail
  • FIR not naming applicant
  • illegal detention
  • bribe demand
  • custodial interrogation
  • Section 438 CrPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 117

Criminal Application No.2765 of 2005

2005-05-04

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for Applicant, Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for Respondent

Shri Sureshkumar Ishwarlal Chordiya

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a murder case.

Remedy Sought

The applicant sought anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. I-81 of 2004.

Filing Reason

The applicant was not named in the FIR but was called for interrogation and detained illegally, and a bribe was demanded for his release.

Issues

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail when he is not named in the FIR and there is no material connecting him to the offence. Whether the allegations of illegal detention and bribe demand by the investigating officer are relevant for granting anticipatory bail.

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant argued that he was not named in the FIR and there was no material to connect him with the offence. The applicant alleged that he was illegally detained and a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- was demanded by the investigating officer for his release. The prosecution opposed the application, but the court considered the lack of material against the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

Anticipatory bail can be granted when the applicant is not named in the FIR and there is no material to connect him with the offence, especially when there are allegations of illegal detention and bribe demand by the investigating officer.

Judgment Excerpts

The F.I.R. makes no reference to the involvement of the Applicant, not even remote suggestion is found in that behalf in the F.I.R. The Applicant was detained in the Police Station from 6th December 2004 till the morning of 7th December 2004, when he was released at around 4.30 a.m. The specific case of the Applicant is that he was released by the Investigating Officer only after being detained for almost 17 hours in the Police Station, only after the illegal demand made by the Investigating Officer Shri Irgonda S.Patil of Rs.1,50,000/- was fulfilled by his wife through Roshanlal Chunilal Jain @ Babu Bobda.

Procedural History

The applicant filed Criminal Application No.2765 of 2005 under Section 438 CrPC before the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. I-81 of 2004 registered at Kasa Police Station, Thane. The court heard the parties and passed the order on 4th May 2005.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 438
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Reverses High Court Acquittal in Murder Case Under Section 302 IPC. Eyewitness Testimony and Prompt FIR Found Reliable; Acquittal Set Aside for Failure to Consider Material Evidence.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order in Teacher Recruitment Case Due to Reliance on Invalidated Selection List. Termination Upheld as Based on Fresh Reselection Process Ordered by State Administrative Tribunal, with Marks Recalculated to 109.86 ...