Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which had rejected the appellant's application for anticipatory bail concerning offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appellant, Beerbal Prasad Rajoriya, faced apprehension of arrest following a First Information Report lodged on 10.03.2022, alleging serious offences. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the arguments from both sides, noted that the incident had occurred five months prior to the filing of the FIR, which raised questions about the immediacy and credibility of the allegations. The court granted interim relief on 14.07.2022, preventing the appellant's arrest pending further consideration. Ultimately, the court made the interim order absolute, allowing the appellant to be released on bail upon furnishing cash security of Rs.50,000 with two sureties, provided he cooperated with the investigation and did not interfere with the trial process. The appeal was thus allowed, affirming the necessity of anticipatory bail under the circumstances presented.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438 - The appellant sought anticipatory bail after being apprehensive of arrest in connection with serious offences under IPC. The court found that the allegations were made five months after the incident, indicating a case for anticipatory bail, and thus allowed the appeal with specific conditions. Held that the appellant must cooperate with the investigation (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with the registered offences.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, granting anticipatory bail to the appellant subject to conditions including cash security and cooperation with the investigation.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- IPC offences
- interim relief
- cash security
- cooperation with investigation
