Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Solely On Ground That Accused Is Not Required For Custodial Interrogation: Gujarat High Court
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the non-requirement of custodial interrogation cannot by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to an accused. "Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory...
A single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court held that the non-requirement of custodial interrogation cannot by itself be a ground to grant anticipatory bail to an accused.
"Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail," Justice Samir J. Dave observed.
The applicant was booked for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409, 114 and 120B of IPC. He approached the High Court for anticipatory bail on the ground that the nature of allegations against him is not such which requires his custodial interrogation and he will be available during the course of investigation.
The trial court rejected the anticipatory bail application on the ground that there is prima facie case against the applicant of which the investigation is going on and custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.
The High Court relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in XXX v. Arun Kumar C.K & Anr., 2022 Live Law (SC) 870 in which it was laid down that the first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment.
The court also put emphasis on the ratio in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N.C.T. Delhi and another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 1263 where the Supreme Court has observed:
“It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting the bail, the Legislature has used the words ‘reasonable grounds for believing’ instead of ‘the evidence’ which means the court dealing with 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.”
In this background the court denied the anticipatory bail to the applicant by stating that there is prima facie case against the appellant and this is not the case where the discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant for anticipatory bail.
Case Title: Harisinh Abhesinh Parmar v. State of Gujarat
Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 21
Coram: Justice Samir J. Dave
Advocates: Mr. B.M. Mangukiya and Ms. Bela A Prajapati for Applicant
Mr. R.C. Kodekar, the APP for the state