Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (10) TMI 2026 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking grant of anticipatory bail - invocation of inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. - locus standi to file petition - HELD THAT:- Even if the issue of locus standi of the petitioner were to be kept aside, this Court finds no merit in the submissions of the petitioner attributing impropriety to the court of sessions in grant of relief to the second respondent by order dated 05.07.2018. The question as to whether the court vested with the power to grant anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C. can exercise such jurisdiction against the backdrop of order of the court of cognizance issuing process is not res integra - A division bench of this court, as far back as in November, 1996 in PV. NARSIMHA RAO VERSUS STATE (CBI/SPE) [1998 (4) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT] had answered a reference on precisely the same question of law contrary to what is being canvassed by the petitioner. Pertinent to note that in that case also the petitioner had come up to this Court for grant of anticipatory bail in the wake of summons issued by court of Magistrate against him. The division bench, answering the reference made by a learned single judge had, inter alia, observed that a person against whom accusations of cognizable and non-bailable offence have been made may apprehend arrest by the police or arrest even at the hands of the court. It was noted that the language used in Section 438 Cr.P.C. is clear and unambiguous namely "reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation" - It was also noted that Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where the arrest may be apprehended at the instance of the court and, thus, mandates that if such order of cognizance is passed and the Magistrate decides that a warrant should be issued at his instance, such warrant would have to be a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the court under Section 438 (1) Cr.P.C. The rulings of the Supreme Court in Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Anr. [2003 (10) TMI 692 - SUPREME COURT] and Ravindra Saxena vs. State of Rajasthan [2009 (12) TMI 1063 - SUPREME COURT] are sufficient to be quoted as illustration of the law being settled contrary to what is being argued by the petitioner. The petition, thus, is found to be wholly devoid of substance - petition dismissed.
|