Aaratrika Bal
In the recent case, the Lucknow bench, Allahabad High Court held that issuance of a non-bailable warrant and rejection of petition under Section 482 of the CrPC doesn’t stop an applicant from availing the remedy under Section 438 of the CrPC.
The bench consisting of the Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan observed that,
“… even if an application of the accused filed u/s 482 CrPC has been disposed of, he/she may not be restrained to file his/her anticipatory bail application.”
The learned counsels have also mentioned many previous cases to prove their respective points.
Background Of the Case:
In this case, the applicant, Jaffar Masood, had taken a loan from the State Bank of India (SBI). The learned counsel representing the applicant mentioned that the applicant’s property was under the Bank’s possession. It had been auctioned as per the sale notice dated 29th September 2020. The applicant was ready to cooperate with the proceedings, but he missed the date fixed before the learned trial court due to lack of attention. As a result, a non-bailable warrant got issued against him.
The learned counsel tried to draw the Court’s attention to many cases, including Vinod Sharma & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another[1], Lavesh v. State (NCT, Delhi)[2], and many others. In the former case, the Apex Court held that “… even if an application of the accused filed u/s 482 CrPC has been disposed of, he/she may not be restrained to file his/her anticipatory bail application.”
The counsel of the opposite party claimed that if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, the Bank will suffer huge losses. To that, the counsel for the applicant mentioned that by selling the applicant’s property, the Bank had got more amount than what was borrowed in the first place. Also, since the applicant has not absconded, there is no reason for not entertaining his anticipatory bail application.
The Hon’ble High Court declared that since the applicant has cooperated at all stages and is not an absconder, “liberty of the present applicant may be protected till the completion of the trial…”
The Allahabad High Court accepted the application for anticipatory bail of the applicant. The Court has also listed certain conditions. First of all, the applicant cannot leave the country without prior authorization from the Court. The applicant cannot pressurize any prosecution witness. He should also appear before the trial court whenever called for. In case of breaching any condition, the court will be at liberty to cancel his bail.
The application was filed by advocates Pradeep Kumar Rai, Prakarsh Pandey & Praveen Kumar Shukla.
Case Title: Jaffar Masood v. State of UP thru. Cbi/Acb Lucknow
Citation: Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 CrPC No. – 1564 of 2022.
[1] Vinod Sharma & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another, (Crl) No. 6057 of 2021.
[2] Lavesh v. State (NCT, Delhi), 8 SCC 730, (2012).