Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Ravindra P., filed a criminal petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 257/2018 (C.C. No. 7559/2019) registered by Cubbon Park Police Station, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 408, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(A), 506, and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The respondent No. 2, Vaitheeswaran S., objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. had been issued against the petitioner and he had remained absconding. The respondent relied on the Supreme Court decision in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, which held that an absconding accused who has not cooperated with investigation should not be granted anticipatory bail. The petitioner's counsel argued that the facts of the present case were distinguishable, as the petitioner had participated in the investigation and was not evading arrest. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the mere issuance of a proclamation does not automatically bar the maintainability of a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court must examine the facts to determine if the accused has truly absconded and not cooperated with the investigation. In this case, the petitioner had cooperated, and therefore the petition was maintainable. The court did not decide the merits of the bail application at this stage.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Maintainability despite Proclamation - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - The court considered whether an accused who has been proclaimed an absconder under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is entitled to seek anticipatory bail. The court held that the mere issuance of a proclamation does not automatically bar the maintainability of a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court must examine the facts to determine if the accused has truly absconded and not cooperated with the investigation. (Paras 2-3) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Anticipatory Bail - Absconding Accused - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - The court distinguished the Supreme Court decision in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, noting that in that case the accused had not cooperated with investigation and remained absconding. In the present case, the petitioner had participated in the investigation and was not evading arrest. Therefore, the petition was maintainable. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner and the petitioner has been declared an absconder.
Final Decision
The court held that the petition is maintainable and directed that the matter be heard on merits. The court did not grant or deny bail at this stage.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable even if proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued
- provided the accused has not absconded and has cooperated with investigation
- the decision in State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma is distinguishable on facts.
