Prior Interim Protection No Ground To Grant Anticipatory Bail: Gujarat High Court
"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held. Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397,...
"Merely granting protection for long time would not be a ground to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused, when the applicant is otherwise disentitled for anticipatory bail", the Gujarat High Court has held.
Justice Ilesh J. Vora was hearing an application under Section 438 of CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with an FIR for offences under Sections 307, 397, 452, 324, 323, 143, 147, 148, 504 and 506(2) of IPC.
The Applicant, along with seven persons, armed with washbasin pipe, having metal bolt, allegedly assaulted the victim Anand and caused severe head injuries and looted cash of about INR 30,000. When the first informant tried to intervene, the Applicant threatened that if they filed an FIR, there would be dire consequences. The entire incident was captured on CCTV footage.
Thereafter, the Applicant moved an anticipatory bail which was rejected by the Sessions Court stating that the alleged offence was prima facie serious and that custodial investigation was necessary.
The Applicant contended that the impugned FIR was a counter blast to the complaint filed by the Applicant which was not registered by the police. Further, the victim had provoked the attack and that the Applicant had not done anything since the last two years, while he was protected by the Court.
The Applicant further claimed that is rooted in the society and had no adverse antecedents. Meanwhile, the Applicant had cooperated with the investigation. A case registered against the Applicant with another police station was quashed by the High Court while a case registered with Gandhinagar police station had been stayed by the High Court in quashing proceedings.
Per contra, the Complainant urged that anticipatory bail could only be granted in exceptional circumstances where the Court was of prima facie view that the Applicant was roped in false charges. Here, the Applicant was said to be having political influence, could tamper with evidence and significantly, he had disclosed his identity based on the CCTV footage. The Respondent-State concurred with these arguments.
Noting the Supreme Court's opinion in P Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement [2019 (9) SCC 24] wherein it was observed, "ordinarily, arrest is a part of procedure of investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused, but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the Court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of accusation; possibility of fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail or not", the Bench refused to grant anticipatory bail to the Applicant.
Per the Bench, the whole incident was captured on CCTV footage wherein the Applicant's presence was confirmed. The victim was stripped by the accused and that another accused was yet to be identified for which the investigation was still going on.
The Court noted that there were prior FIRs against two offences against the Applicant and the contention that no purpose would be served by sending him to jail was rejected. Accordingly, the Application was rejected.
Case Title: HIRENBHAI HITESHBHAI PATEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 49
Case No.: R/CR.MA/6077/2020
Click Here To Read/Download Order