'Relationship Between Logic & Experience Important While Invoking Precedents': Allahabad High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday held that while invoking judicial precedents to decide a case with similar facts and circumstances, it was important to understand the relationship between logic and experience and reiterated that they cannot be applied mechanically. 

Holding so, Justice Krishan Pahal rejected the anticipatory bail moved by the mother of the deceased who died in her house by suicide.

“The eminent jurist Benjamin N. Cardozo, a former Judge of Supreme Court of America, in his book 'The Nature of the Judicial Process', has stated that the precedents cannot be applied in any given dispute without some element of discretion, for which Judges must take responsibility. He says 'most Judges are inclined to say that what was once thought to be the exception is the rule, and what was the rule is the exception now'. The relationship between logic and experience is important in the context of invoking precedents.”

Factual Background:

The informant’s husband purportedly resided with his parents as his father had fallen sick and his income was transferred to his father’s account. The informant was at her maternal home when she received the news of her husband’s suicide. She received an alleged suicide note from her father-in-law’s phone which was used by her husband. Consequently, she filed an FIR against her in-laws.

Counsel for Applicants pleaded that since they were women, sending them behind bars would tarnish their image. A co-accused had already been granted regular bail and there was no eye witness in the present case. Further, it was stated that the FIR had been lodged after a delay of one month and, since the chargesheet had been filed, there was no occasion for tampering evidence. Thus, counsel argued that it was a fit case for anticipatory bail.

Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Vinod Kumar Sharma & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. and the decision of Allahabad High Court in Dr. Rajni Tripathi vs. State of U.P. where the Courts have held that a petition under Section 483 CrPCfor anticipatory bail is maintainable even after dismissal of an application filed under Section 482 CrPC.

Further reliance was placed by the Applicant on Udit Arya vs. State of U.P, wherein Allahabad High Court had granted anticipatory bail despite the initiation of proceedings under Section 82 CrPC. Per Contra, Counsel for Informant relied on the Apex Court decision in Prem Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar & Anr. to state that where proceedings under Section 82 (Proclamation for person absconding) and Section 83 (Attachment of Property of person absconding) had been completed, anticipatory bail was not maintainable.

Observations of the High Court:

The Court observed that in the case of the present applicants, the chargesheet had been challenged earlier and the applicants had failed whereas in the case of Kamlesh, “the F.I.R. was challenged in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as is the practice at Rajasthan High Court, as such even after the petition challenging the F.I.R. is concerned, the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is very much taken up and decided by this Court.”

Distinguishing the case of Vinod Kumar, the Court observed that the law laid down in that case that ‘regular bail’ includes Section 483 CrPC will not apply to the facts of the present case.

“Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance on the judgment of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra), whereby it has been opined that the word 'regular bail' includes the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said argument hold good and it is very true that even if the order for regular bail is passed, the anticipatory bail can be taken up, but the said case law also do not apply to the present case as we have to see the case on his own merits and the said judgment of this Court passed in the case of Dr. Rajni Tripathi (supra) has been placed on the said judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Vinod Kumar Sharma (supra). Thus, they do not apply to the present case.”

Further, the Court held that the proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC was completed more than six months ago and that the suicide was committed in the house of the applicants. Thus, the exception carved out in the case of Udit Arya will not be applicable in the present case.

Finally, the Court held that the case sought to declare per-in curium by the applicants shall be applicable and thus, rejected the anticipatory bail.

Case Title: Kusum Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 1907 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 289

Counsel for Applicant: Ghanshyam Das Mishra, Abhishek Kumar Mishra, Chandrakesh Mishra, Umesh Panday

Counsel for Opposite Party: Sunil Kumar, Ved Prakash Shukla

Click Here To Read/Download Order