What is required to be considered before granting anticipatory bail, is nature of allegation & accusation, & not that nature of accusation is arising out of business transaction:SC

Read Judgment: Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State Of Bihar & Anr

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, October 22, 2021: The Supreme Court has opined that what is required to be considered before granting anticipatory bail, is the nature of allegation and the accusation, and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. 

A Division Bench of Justice M.R Shah and Justice A.S. Bopanna therefore observed that the declaration made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to the accused (second respondent) that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction and therefore the accused is entitled to the anticipatory bail is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. 

The observation came pursuant to the grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court, which was initially dismissed by the Trial Court on the ground that the accused was absconding and even the proceedings u/s 82/83 of CrPC was issued. 

Challenging the same, the counsel on behalf of the State contended that a person against whom the proclamation was issued and the proceedings u/s 82/83 of CrPC have been initiated, was not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. 

After considering the arguments, the Top Court noted that after investigation a charge-sheet had been filed against the accused (second respondent) for the offences punishable u/s 406, 420 of IPC. 

Thus it was found that there was a prima facie case against the accused and it had come on record that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate as far as back on December 19, 2018 and thereafter proceedings u/s 82/83 of CrPC had been initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), added the Court. 

The Top Court also found that the specific allegations of cheating which came to be considered by Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) had not at all been considered by the High Court, and it had just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings u/s 82/83 of CrPC by simply observing that “be that as it may”. 

The Apex Court quoted the decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, wherein it was held that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of section 82 of CrPC, he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.

Hence, the Apex Court set aside the judgment of the High Court granting anticipatory bail to the accused.