Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nakul, accused No.11, approached the High Court of Karnataka seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with Crime No.162/2019 registered by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru. The crime was registered for alleged offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 114, 302, 109, 120-B, 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The petitioner had been arrayed as accused No.11 and was shown as absconding, leading the trial court to issue a proclamation against him. At the hearing before the High Court, learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the court's attention that out of the total 16 accused persons sent for trial, 11 accused had already been granted regular bail. In view of the petitioner's proclaimed status and the existence of bail orders in favour of a majority of the co-accused, the counsel sought leave to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition and reserved liberty to the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and thereafter apply for regular bail. The High Court heard the submissions of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, who did not raise any specific objection to the prayer for withdrawal. The court placed on record the submission made by the petitioner's counsel and proceeded to dispose of the petition. The court held that having regard to the fact that co-accused had been enlarged on bail, the trial court shall consider any application for regular bail filed by the petitioner expeditiously. The trial court was directed to take into consideration the bail orders issued in favour of the other accused while deciding such application. The court expressly stated that the application shall be disposed of in accordance with law. No finding was recorded on the merits of the anticipatory bail plea, and the order did not confer any direct protection from arrest. The liberty granted to the petitioner to surrender and seek regular bail ensured that the petitioner could avail the same yardstick applied to similarly circumstanced co-accused, thereby upholding fairness and parity. The decision underscores the procedural propriety where an absconding accused may forego the anticipatory bail remedy and instead seek regular bail post-surrender, especially when co-accused have already been granted bail.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail - Withdrawal of Petition - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - The petitioner, accused No.11, was shown as absconding and a proclamation had been issued. Co-accused had been enlarged on regular bail. Petitioner sought to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition with liberty to surrender before the trial court and apply for regular bail. The High Court disposed of the petition, directing the trial court to consider any regular bail application filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in accordance with law, taking into account the bail orders granted to co-accused. Held that the petition is disposed of with said observation. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, accused no.11 shown as absconding, can be permitted to withdraw the anticipatory bail petition with liberty to surrender before trial court and apply for regular bail.
Final Decision
Petition disposed of with observation that the trial court shall consider any application for regular bail filed by petitioner expeditiously, taking into account the bail orders granted to co-accused.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- withdrawal of petition
- liberty to surrender and apply for regular bail
- consideration of co-accused bail orders
- trial court directions
