Nature & Gravity Of Offence Taken Into Account While Considering Anticipatory Bail: Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief For Forging Pattas

Rajasthan High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the person charged under five different FIRs for forging “pattas” that were never actually issued by the Ajmer Development Authority and taking lakhs of rupees from complainants to distribute these fabricated pattas and documents.

A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “While considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, no doubt, the Court has to take into consideration the personal liberty of the accused as a relevant factor, however, at the same time it is the duty of the Court to take into account the nature of the offences involved and the charges levelled against the persons alleged.”

Counsel for the applicant argued for the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that during his period of incarceration entire investigation was done by the police. The counsel also stated that filing of repeated FIRs for same allegations amounted to abuse of the process of law.

On the other hand, the application was countered by the counsel for the complainant who contended that it had been concluded in the chargesheet that after fabricating the documents, the applicant also destroyed the evidences as well as threatened the material witnesses as well as complainants. The counsel also pointed out that during investigation, statements of two witnesses indicated applicant's involvement in the crime. Furthermore, reference was also made to the fifth FIR that was launched recently against the petitioner for same nature of allegations. The counsel argued that looking at the gravity of the matter, the applicant should not be granted bail.

The Court took into account certain observations made in different Supreme Court cases on anticipatory bail. In the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v Ashis Chatterjee & Anr., certain factors were laid down to be kept in mind while considering applications for anticipatory bail. Some of these factors included, whether there was any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of punishment for the alleged offence. Similar observations were made in Nimmagadda Prasad v CBI wherein it was held that the Court should keep in mind the nature of evidence and accusation while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.

Furthermore, the Court also opined that many Supreme Court cases have settled that while deciding an anticipatory bail, the court should not make a detailed analysis of evidence but focus on some reasonable grounds that would reveal if the accused had committed the offence or would reflect the seriousness of the offence. Similar observation was made in Nimmagadda Prasad v CBI:

“It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge. It is not expected, at this stage, to have the evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

Taking these cases into account, the Court held that the allegations of forging pattas and distributing these for lakhs of rupees, made in five different FIRS, were serious allegations that required investigation by the investigating agency. Accordingly, looking at the nature of allegation and gravity of the matter, the bail application was rejected by the Court.

Title: Dilip Sharma v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 127

Click Here To Read/Download Order