Gujarat High Court
Ranvir Sinh Jagdish Sinh Zala vs State Of Gujarat on 14 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 2844 of 2025
(FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL)
=======================================================
RANVIR SINH JAGDISH SINH ZALA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
=======================================================
Appearance:
MR JAL UNWALA, Sr. Adv. with MR PARTH H BHATT(6381) for
the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS KHYATI A CHUGH(10132) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR HARDIK SONI APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=======================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 14/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present application under Section
482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 (for short “BNSS”), the applicant has prayed
for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in
connection with the FIR being C.R. No.
11205032231333/2023 of 2025 registered with Mundra
Police Station, for the alleged offences as
mentioned in the FIR.
2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Zal Unwala
assisted by learned advocate, Mr. Parth Bhatt for
the applicant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, Mr. Hardik Soni for the respondent –
State of Gujarat.
3. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Unwala has referred to
the FIR and submitted that so-called incident has
occurred on 13.04.2023, for which, FIR has been
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
lodged on 10.10.2023 and thus, there is gross
delay of six months in registering the said FIR
and the complainant has failed to explain such
delay. He submitted that FIR is lodged against
total six accused persons, wherein the applicant
is shown as accused no.3 and except the present
applicant, other accused were arrested and,
thereafter, released on bail by the court
concerned. He submitted that in fact, the
applicant herein is the Police Officer and on the
date of incident, he had acted as per the oral
direction issued by his superior officer and with
a sole intent to add gravity in the offence, the
provision of Prevention of Corruption Act has been
invoked. He submitted that if the Hon’ble Court
would make cursory glance upon the contents of the
FIR, in that event, it would be found out that the
present applicant has not received single penny
from the complainant and in fact, there is no
demand, acceptance and recovery by the present
applicant and thus, the applicant is not directly
or indirect connected with the alleged commission
of crime. He further submitted that in fact, in
the present case, the applicant is made scapegoat
as there was inimical terms with some higher
officers and immediately after registration of the
FIR, he was transferred and subsequently,
suspended from the services. He submitted that the
reason behind implicating the applicant herein in
the aforesaid FIR is that he had raised finger
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
upon the higher-ups. He submitted that there is no
dispute about the issuance of warrant under
Section 70 of the CrPC and subsequently, the
proceeding initiated under Section 82 of the CrPC
for proclaimed offender. He, however, submitted
that upon coming to know about the issuance of
warrant against the applicant, an application came
to be preferred for cancellation of such warrant,
however, the said application was not entertained
by the court concerned, therefore, said orders
were assailed by the applicant before this Hon’ble
Court by filing Criminal Revision Application
No.1760/2024, however, the Coordinate Bench of
this Hon’ble Court, by a judgment dated
30.07.2025, rejected the said revision
application. He submitted that if the Hon’ble
Court would make cursory glance upon the contents
of the application, in that event, it is found out
that the applicant has been wrongly framed in the
present offence and he has been made scapegoat by
his higher-ups.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that so far as
the present offence is concerned, as stated above,
as per the oral instructions of his higher-ups,
the applicant had gone to the place of occurrence
and because of the serious allegations leveled
against the members of the police party, the
departmental proceeding had initiated and the
applicant had been suspended from the services in
his absence. He submitted that in fact, the said
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
proceedings were proceeded ex parte as because of
registration of the FIR, the applicant could not
remain present. He submitted that in the operative
part of the order of the Inquiry Officer, the
Inquiry Officer had made observation in a succinct
manner stating that the allegations under the
Prevention of Corruption Act are concerned, those
charges could not have been found out against the
applicant and he was suspended from the services
on account of his constant absenteeism, copy of
said order is placed on record. He further
submitted that considering the aforesaid facts,
custodial interrogation at this stage is not
necessary and the applicant will keep herself
available during the course of investigation,
trial also and will not flee from justice. He on
instructions submitted that the applicant is ready
and willing to abide by all the conditions
including imposition of conditions while releasing
the applicant on anticipatory bail. It is,
therefore, urged that that considering the above
facts, the applicant may be granted anticipatory
bail.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Soni
appearing for the respondent – State of Gujarat
has opposed the present application with a
vehemence and submitted that the applicant is
actively involved in commission of crime and his
role in the commission of crime is clearly spelt
out from the investigation papers collected so
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
far. He submitted that specific role of the
applicant is clearly mentioned in the operative
part of the FIR that huge volume of amount has
been collected by the members of the police party
from the vendor by putting him in danger. He
submitted that it is the specific case of the
prosecution that all the accused persons (police
personnel) had gone to the godown of the
complainant and abducted the Manager of the
complainant of the godown and kept him in illegal
detention, where he was beaten and, thereafter,
the complainant was asked to make arrangement of
huge amount of Rs.5.00 crores with a sole intent
to get out from the criminal liability, otherwise,
criminal prosecution will be launched against them
and they would have to face the criminal
proceedings. He submitted that after registration
of the FIR, the investigation was put into motion
and during the investigation, the accused persons
have been arrested. He submitted that in fact, the
statements of certain witnesses have been
recorded. He referred to the statement of the
Manager of the Godown and submitted that in his
statement, he has stated in a very categorical
terms that the members of the police party had
come to his godown and, thereafter, he was taken
to particular place and kept in captivity. He
submitted that during the interrogation, the said
witness has stated that he will recognize the
person, who had come on the date of incident. He
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
submitted that so far as the applicant is
concerned, he is evading his arrest, therefore
without securing his presence, his identity would
not be disclosed before the witness.
6. Learned APP has also referred to the statements of
the witnesses recorded during the course of
investigation and submitted that it is found out
from those statements that without getting any
prior permission from the higher authority, a raid
was carried out and the said act on the part of
the applicant itself is illegal one. Not only
that, thereafter they had demanded huge volume of
amount from the owner of the complainant and
during the investigation, certain amount had been
recovered by the IO. He also referred to the
statements of other co-accused, wherein they have
stated in a categorical terms that all the accused
had gone to particular place. He submitted that
before registration of the FIR, the accused had
gone to the court concerned for the purpose of
getting permission, however with a sole intent to
not to disclose the movement of the applicant, he
travelled at those places in his private vehicle.
7. Learned APP submitted that as the applicant was
evading his arrest, the concerned Investigating
Officer submitted an application under Section 70
of the CrPC for issuance of warrant, wherein the
court concerned has taken cognizance and,
thereafter, proceeding under Section 82 of the
CrPC was also initiated against the applicant for
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
declaring him as proclaimed offender and the
application preferred before this Hon’ble Court
challenging the issuance of warrant has also been
dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
He submitted that the applicant is the Police
Officer working in the department but for the
reasons best known to him, he has indulged himself
into such serious offence and the material
collected by the IO during the course of
investigation clearly goes on to show the direct
involvement of the applicant in the commission of
crime. He further submitted that in fact, muddamal
car used at the time of commission of crime and
huge volume of amount i.e. Rs.30,00,000/-, which
had come into the share of the applicant, are yet
to be recovered. It is, therefore, submitted that
the investigation is at crucial stage and the
material collected so far suggests the involvement
of the applicant in the commission of crime,
therefore, custodial interrogation of the
applicant is required. It is, therefore, urged
that considering the above facts, discretionary
relief may not be granted at this stage the
present application may be rejected.
8. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties and perusing the investigation papers,
it is equally incumbent upon the Court to exercise
its discretion judiciously, cautiously and
strictly in compliance with the basic principles
laid down in a plethora of decisions of the
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Hon’ble Apex Court on the point. It is well
settled that, among other circumstances, the
factors to be borne in mind while considering an
application for bail are (i) the nature and
gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of
the applicants including the fact as to whether he
has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable
offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicants
to flee from justice; and (iv) where the
accusation has been made with the object of
injuring or humiliating the applicants by having
him so arrested. Though at the stage of granting
bail an elaborate examination of evidence and
detailed reasons touching the merit of the case,
which may prejudice the accused, should be
avoided.
9. It is required to be noted that normal procedure
prescribed for curtailing the right to life &
liberty, is that the investigating officer can
arrest the accused even without warrant. No doubt
this Court has extraordinary power to protect an
innocent person. However, this power has to be
exercised by the Courts with due circumspection.
10. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and
having considered the allegations leveled in the
FIR, it is found out that an FIR came to be
registered for the alleged incident alleging inter
alia that the accused persons, in connivance with
each other, have hatched conspiracy to kidnap the
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Manager of the Godown, Ashish Patel and as a part
of said conspiracy, they had gone there and
kidnapped the said Ashish Patel and, thereafter,
kept him in illegal detention and demanded ransom,
otherwise, he would be involved in false cases and
thereby they have received Rs.3,75,00,000/- and
committed alleged offences. Further on careful
examination of the material available on record,
which are supplied by learned APP during the
course of hearing, it is found out that there are
ample material and evidence collected by the
concerned Investigating Officer during the course
of investigation, which clearly goes on to show
the involvement of the applicant in the commission
of crime in connivance with other accused persons.
It is not in dispute that the applicant is a
Police Officer working in the department and it is
his duty to protect every citizen, however in the
present case, he has indulged into such serious
offence of kidnapping and demanded extortion, that
too, huge volume of amount and thus, he had acted
against his duty. It is also found out from the
record that while executing such crime, the
applicant has taken due care and caution to
protect his skin from disclosing his name in the
present offence because instead of travelling in
Government vehicle, he travelled in his personal
car.
11. It is required to be noted that the FIR is dated
10.10.2023 and we are in the year 2025 and till
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
date, the applicant is evading his arrest at the
hands of the concerned Investigating Officer. It
is not that the concerned Investigating Officer
has not made his efforts to find out the applicant
but it is the applicant, who is evading his arrest
for one reason or other. Not only that, to secure
the presence of the applicant for the purpose of
investigation, the concerned Investigating Officer
has submitted an application under Section 70 of
the CrPC for the purpose of issuance of warrant,
wherein the court concerned has passed an order
issuing warrant, however, the applicant could not
be found out, therefore, the concerned
Investigating Officer has submitted an application
under Section 82 of the CrPC for declaring the
applicant as proclaimed offender, wherein also,
the court concerned has passed an order and
despite the said fact, the applicant is not yet
traceable and he is evading his arrest, which
clearly goes on to show the act, conduct and
behavior of the applicant.
12. One of the contentions is raised by learned Senior
Counsel with regard to the challenge to the
proceedings instituted under Section 70 of the
CrPC as also under Section 82 of the CrPC by the
concerned Investigating Officer before this Hon’le
Court, wherein the said petition has been
dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court.
In support of the said contention, learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance upon the decision of
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asha Dubey
Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2024
(4) Crimes 449, more particularly relied upon
Paragraph Nos.4, 6, 7 and 8. However, there is no
dispute about the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the said case, however, the said
decision, in the facts of the present case, is not
helpful to the applicant. At this stage, I would
like to place reliance upon the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Srikant Upadhyay
Vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2014 (0) AIR(SC)
1600, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt
with similar issue. In the said decision, the
applicant concerned had approached the Hon’ble
Supreme Court against the order rejecting an
application for anticipatory bail, wherein also,
the proceedings were initiated under Section 70 of
the CrPC as also under Section 82 of the CrPC and
considering the facts of the case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
in Paragraph Nos.8 to 11 as under,
“8. It is thus obvious from the catena of
decisions dealing with bail that even while
clarifying that arrest should be the last
option and it should be restricted to cases
where arrest is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of a case, the consistent
view is that the grant of anticipatory bail
shall be restricted to exceptional
circumstances. In other words, the position
is that the power to grant anticipatory
bail under Section 438, Cr. PC is an
exceptional power and should be exercised
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
only in exceptional cases and not as a
matter of course. Its object is to ensure
that a person should not be harassed or
humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge
or personal vendetta of the complainant.
(See the decision of this Court in HDFC
Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1)
SCC 679.
9. When a Court grants anticipatory bail what
it actually does is only to make an order
that in the event of arrest, the arrestee
shall be released on bail, subject to the
terms and conditions. Taking note of the
fact the said power is to be exercised in
exceptional circumstances and that it may
cause some hinderance to the normal flow of
investigation method when called upon to
exercise the power under Section 438,
Cr.PC, courts must keep reminded of the
position that law aides only the abiding
and certainly not its resistant. By saying
so, we mean that a person, having subjected
to investigation on a serious offence and
upon making out a case, is included in a
charge sheet or even after filing of a
refer report, later, in accordance with
law, the Court issues a summons to a
person, he is bound to submit himself to
the authority of law. It only means that
though he will still be at liberty, rather,
in his right, to take recourse to the legal
remedies available only in accordance with
law, but not in its defiance. We will
dilate this discussion with reference to
the factual matrix of this case. However,
we think that before dealing with the same,
a small deviation to have a glance at the
scope and application of the provisions
under Section 82, Cr.PC will not be
inappropriate.
10. There can be little doubt with respect to
the position that the sine qua non for
initiation of an action under Section 82,
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Cr. PC is prior issuance of warrant of
arrest by the Court concerned. In that
regard it is relevant to refer to Section
82 (1), Cr. PC, which reads thus: –
“82. Proclamation for person
absconding. (1) If any Court has
reason to believe (whether after
taking evidence or not) that any
person against whom a warrant has been
issued by it has absconded or is
concealing himself so that such
warrant cannot be executed, such Court
may publish a written proclamation
requiring him to appear at a specified
place and at a specified time not less
than thirty days from the date of
publishing such proclamation.”
11. The use of expression ‘reason to believe’
employed in Section 82 (1) Cr. PC would
suggest that the Magistrate concerned must
be subjectively satisfied that the person
concerned has absconded or has concealed
himself. In the context of Section 82, Cr.
PC, we will have to understand the
importance of the term ‘absconded’. Its
etymological and ordinary sense is that one
who is hiding himself or concealing himself
and avoiding arrest. Since the legality of
the proceedings under Section 82, Cr. PC is
not under challenge, we need not go into
that question. As noticed above, the nub of
the contentions is that pending the
application for pre-arrest bail,
proclamation under Section 82, Cr.P.C.,
should not have been issued and at any
rate, its issuance shall not be a reason
for declining to consider such application
on merits. Bearing in mind the position of
law revealed from the decisions referred to
hereinbefore and the positions of law, we
will briefly refer to the factual
background of the case.”
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
13. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.17 to 21 as
under,
“17. Section 70 (2), Cr. PC mandates that every
warrant issued under Section 70 (1), Cr. PC
shall remain in force until it is cancelled
by the Court which issued it, or until it
is executed. In this case, as noticed
hereinbefore, the bailable warrants and
thereafter the non-bailable warrants, were
issued against the appellants. They were
neither cancelled by the Trial Court nor
they were executed. It is not their case
that they have successfully challenged
them. Sections 19, 20, 21, 174 and 174 A,
IPC assume relevance in this context. They,
insofar as relevant read thus:
19. “Judge”. The word “Judge” denotes not
only every person who is officially
designated as a Judge, but also every
person who is empowered by law to
give, in any legal proceeding, civil
or criminal, a definitive judgment, or
a judgment which, if not appealed
against, would be definitive, or a
judgment which, if confirmed by some
other authority, would be definitive,
or who is one of a body or persons,
which body of persons is empowered by
law to give such a judgment.
20. “Court of Justice”.The words “Court of
Justice” denote a Judge who is
empowered by law to act judicially
alone, or a body of Judges which is
empowered by law to act judicially as
a body, when such Judge or body of
Judges is acting judicially.
21. “Public servant”.The words “public
servant” denote a person falling under
any of the descriptions hereinafterPage 14 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
following, namely:
[Third. Every Judge including any person
empowered by law to discharge, whether
by himself or as a member of any body
of persons, any adjudicatory
functions;]
174. Non-attendance in obedience to an
order from public servant.Whoever,
being legally bound to attend in
person or by an agent at a certain
place and time in obedience to a
summons, notice, order, or
proclamation proceeding from any
public servant legally competent, as
such public servant, to issue the
same, intentionally omits to attend at
that place or time, or departs from
the place where he is bound to attend
before the time at which it is lawful
for him to depart, shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month, or with
fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees, or with both, or, if the
summons, notice, order or proclamation
is to attend in person or by agent in
a Court of Justice, with simple
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine
which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.
174A. Non-appearance in response to a
proclamation under section 82 of Act 2
of 1974. Whoever fails to appear at
the specified place and the specified
time as required by a proclamation
published under sub-section (1) of
section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years or with fine or
with both, and where a declaration has
Page 15 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
been made under sub-section (4) of
that section pronouncing him as a
proclaimed offender, he shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.
18. Taking note of the aforesaid facts
with respect to the issuance of
summons, warrants and subsequently the
proclamation, a conjoint reading of
Sections 19, 20 and 21, IPC containing
the terms “Judge”, “Court of Justice”
and “Public Servant” and Sections 174
and 174A, IPC can make them liable
even to face further proceedings. Same
is the position in case of non-
attendance in obedience to
proclamation under Section 82, Cr. PC.
19. Bearing in mind the aforesaid
provisions and position, we will refer
to certain relevant decisions.
In Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors.
v. State of Gujarat, 2004 SCC OnLine
Guj 345 the High Court of Gujarat
observed thus: –
“9. Filing of an Anticipatory Bail
Application by the petitioners-accused
through their advocate cannot be said
to be an appearance of the
petitioners-accused in a competent
Court, so far as proceeding initiated
under Section 82/83 of the Code is
concerned; otherwise each absconding
accused would try to create shelter by
filing an Anticipatory Bail
Application to avoid obligation to
appear before the court and raises the
proceeding under Section 83 of the
Code claiming that he cannot be termed
as an absconder in the eye of law.
Physical appearance before the Court
is most important, if relevant schemePage 16 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
of Sections 82 and 83, is read
closely.” (underline supplied)
20. We are in full agreement with the view
taken by the Gujarat High Court that
filing of an anticipatory bail through
an advocate would not and could not be
treated as appearance before a court
by a person against whom such
proceedings, as mentioned above are
instituted. The meaning of the term
“absconded” has been dealt by us
hereinbefore. We found that its
etymological and original sense is
that the accused is hiding himself.
What is required as proof for
absconding is the evidence to the
effect that the person concerned was
knowing that he was wanted and also
about pendency of warrant of arrest. A
detailed discussion is not warranted
in this case to understand that the
appellants were actually absconding.
It is not in dispute that they were
served with the “summons”. The fact
that bailable warrants were issued
against them on 12.04.2022 is also not
disputed, as the appellants themselves
have produced the order whereunder
bailable warrants were issued against
them. We have already referred to
Section 70 (2), Cr. PC which would
reveal the position that once a
warrant is issued it would remain in
force until it is cancelled by the
Court which issued it or until its
execution. There is no case for the
appellants that either of such events
had occurred in this case to make the
warrants unenforceable. They also got
no case that their application was
interfered with by a higher Court.
That apart, it is a fact that the
appellants themselves on 23.08.2022,
moved a bail-cum-surrender application
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
before the Trial Court but withdrew
the same fearing arrest. It is also
relevant to note that in the case on
hand even while contending that they
were before a Court, the appellants
got no case that in terms of the
provisions under Section 438 (1-B),
Cr. PC an order for their presence
before the Court was ordered either
suo motu by the Court or on an
application by the public prosecutor.
When that be the circumstance, the
appellants cannot be allowed to
contend that they were not hiding or
concealing themselves from arrest or
that they were not knowing that they
were wanted in a Court of law.
21. To understand and consider another
contention of the appellants it is
worthy to extract ground No.3 raised
by the appellants in SLP which reads
thus:
“III. Because the Hon’ble High Court
has failed to appreciate that
proclamation under section 82 Cr.P.C.
was issued on 04.01.2023 by the Ld.
Trial Court and thereafter process
under section 83 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated on 15.03.2023 whereas the
application for anticipatory bail by
the petitioner before the Hon’ble High
Court was filed in November, 2022,
however, the same was came for hearing
on 04.04.2023. It is, therefore,
evident that when the petitioners
preferred filing of anticipatory bail
before the Hon’ble High Court then
none of the petitioner was declared
absconder and process under section
82/83 Cr.P.C. were not initiated
against them.”
Page 18 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
14. It is to be noted that in number of cases, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power to
grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power
and though it was held that bail is said to be a
rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be
said that anticipatory bail is the rule and the
question of its grant should be left to the
cautious and judicious discretion by the Court
depending on the facts and circumstances of each
case and the Court concerned has to be very
cautious as the grant of interim protection or
protection to the accused in serious cases, which
may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper
the investigation to a great extent as it may
sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the
evidence. It is also requried to be noted that in
view of aforesaid decision as well as other
decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as and
when warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued,
in that event, the applicant is not entitled to
invoke the extraordinary power and it is not that
this will not deprive the power of the Court to
grant pre-arrest bail in extreme, exceptional
cases in the interest of justice but here in the
present case, as stated above, the applicant is
continuously defying orders and keeping himself
absconding, therefore, he is not entitled to grant
anticipatory bail. The factual narration made
hereinbefore would reveal the consistent
disobedience of the appellants to comply with the
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
orders of the trial Court. He failed to appear
before the Court concerned after the issuance of
the summons. It is not in dispute that the
applicant has availed remedy by challenging the
orders of issuing warrant but as stated above, the
request of the applicant has been turned down. It
is a fact that even after coming to know about the
proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC., he did not
take any steps to challenge the same or to enter
appearance before the Court concerned to avert the
consequences. Such conduct of the applicant in the
light of the aforesaid circumstances, leaves no
hesitation for me to hold he is not entitled to
seek the benefit of pre-arrest bail.
15. It is well settled that an application preferred
for anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy to
be granted in exception cases. The parameters and
considerations governing the grant of anticipatory
bail have been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in number of cases. At this stage, I would
like to rely upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of (i) State Rep. by the
CBI V/s Anil Sharma reported in 1997 (7) SCC 187,
(ii) Adri Dharan Das V/s State of W.B. reported in
2005 (4) SCC 303 (iii) P. Chidambaram V/s
Directorate of Enforcement reported in AIR 2019 SC
4198, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
held as follows:
“The legislative intent behind the
introduction of Section 438 CrPC is toPage 20 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
safeguard the individual’s personal liberty
and to protect him from the possibility of
being humiliated and from being subjected
to unnecessary police custody. However, the
court must also keep in view that a
criminal offence is not just an offence
against an individual rather the larger
societal interest is at stake. Therefore, a
delicate balance is required to be
established between the two rights –
safeguarding the personal liberty of an
individual and the societal interest.
Ordinarily, arrest is a part of
procedure of the investigation to secure
not only the presence of the accused but
several other purposes. There may be
circumstances in which the accused may
provide information leading to discovery of
material facts and relevant information.
Grant of anticipatory bail may hamper the
investigation. It may frustrate the
investigating agency in interrogating the
accused and in collecting the useful
information and also materials which might
have been concealed. Success in such
interrogation would elude if the accused
knows that he is protected by the order of
the court. Grant of anticipatory bail,
particularly in economic offences would
definitely hamper the effective
investigation. Pre-arrest bail is to strike
a balance between the individual’s right to
personal freedom and the right of the
investigating agency to interrogate the
accused as to the material so far collected
and to collect more information which may
lead to recovery of relevant information.
In this view, it cannot be said that
refusal to grant anticipatory bail would
amount to denial of the rights conferred
upon the appellant/applicant under Article
21 of the Constitution of India.
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
Consequently, power under Section 438
CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to
be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases
of economic offences. Economic offences
stand as a different class as they affect
the economic fabric of the society. The
privilege of the 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 the accusation; possibility of
the applicant fleeing justice and other
factors to decide whether it is a fit case
for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of
anticipatory bail to some extent interferes
in the sphere of investigation of an
offence and hence, the court must be
circumspect while exercising such power for
grant of anticipatory bail. Section 438
CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional
cases where the case alleged is frivolous
or groundless. Anticipatory bail is to be
granted as a matter of rule and it has to
be granted only when the court is convinced
that exceptional circumstances exist to
resort to that extraordinary remedy”.
Having regard to nature of allegations
and stage of investigations, held
investigating agency must be given
sufficient freedom in process of
investigation. Appellant not entitled to
anticipatory bail as the same would hamper
the investigation”.
16. In case of Pratibha Manchanda and another Vs.
State of Haryana and another reported in (2023) 8
SCC 181, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph
No.21, observed as under:-
“21. The relief of anticipatory bail is aimed at
safeguarding individual rights. While itPage 22 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
serves as a crucial tool to prevent the
misuse of the power of arrest and protects
innocent individuals from harassment, it
also presents challenges in maintaining a
delicate balance between individual rights
and the interests of justice. The tight
rope we must walk lies in striking a
balance between safeguarding individual
rights and protecting public interest.
While the right to liberty and presumption
of innocence are vital, the court must also
consider the gravity of the offence, the
impact on society, and the need for a fair
and free investigation. The court’s
discretion in weighing these interests in
the facts and circumstances of each
individual case becomes crucial to ensure a
just outcome.”
17. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as
this application has been preferred under the
provisions of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of anticipatory
bail, I court would like to refer the decision of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra &
Ors.,, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 694, more
particularly Paragraph Nos.14 & 112, which read as
under :-
“14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects
and Reasons that the purpose of
incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C.
was to recognize the importance of personal
liberty and freedom in a free and
democratic country. When we carefully
analyze this section, the wisdom of the
legislature becomes quite evident and clear
that the legislature was keen to ensure
respect for the personal liberty and alsoPage 23 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONR/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
pressed in service the age-old principle
that an individual is presumed to be
innocent till he is found guilty by the
court.
112. The following factors and parameters can be
taken into consideration while dealing with
the anticipatory bail: The nature and
gravity of the accusation and the exact
role of the accused must be properly
comprehended before arrest is made; the
antecedents of the applicant including the
fact as to whether the accused has
previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a Court in respect of any
cognizable offence; The possibility of the
applicant to flee from justice; The
possibility of the accused’s likelihood to
repeat similar or the other offences.
Whereas the accusation have been made only
with the object to injuring or humiliating
the applicant by arresting him or her.
Impact of grant of anticipatory bail
particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people.
The courts must evaluate the entire
available material against the accused very
carefully. The court must also clearly
comprehend the exact role of the accused in
the case.”
18. Thus while taking into consideration the ratio
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), I have
gone through the contents of the FIR, which is
placed on record and also considered the affidavit
of the investigating officer filed before the
learned Judge concerned opposing the bail
application preferred by the applicant. Upon going
through the contents of the FIR, it appears that
prima facie case is made out against the applicant
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/2844/2025 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2025
undefined
and material collected so far suggests the
involvement of the applicant in the commission of
crime. Therefore, the present application deserves
to be rejected.
19. For the foregoing reasons, having regard to facts
and circumstances, peculiar to the instant case,
as have been analyzed hereinabove, there is no
ground for interfering with the order of the
learned Sessions Court rejecting the application
for anticipatory bail. Since his action is nothing
short of defying the lawful orders of the Court
and attempting to delay the proceedings, this
Court does not find any exceptional ground to
exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the BNS, 2023 to grant anticipatory
bail. Hence, the present application seeking for
anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
20. Needless to say that observations and findings
made hereinabove are limited to the decision of
these pre-arrest bail applications, and shall not
influence any other proceedings arise from
impugned FIR.
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI, J.)
Gautam
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by PATIL GAUTAMBHAI GOPALBHAI(HC00190) on Wed Jul 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 16 22:31:37 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link