The single-judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail.
The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made out, are to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant.
Brief facts
The present anticipatory bail application is filed in connection with the case registered under Sections 323, 498A, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner submitted that the anticipatory bail application was filed before the session judge and the same was disposed of without deciding on merit.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that once the petition is filed for anticipatory bail, that is required to be decided on its merit.
It was furthermore observed that many factors must be taken into consideration when determining whether or not to grant bail, and the totality of these factors must be considered before reaching a decision. The grant or denial of bail cannot be justified by a single circumstance as having universal validity. In light of this, the High Court and the Court of Session, to which the application for anticipatory bail is submitted, shall have the liberty to exercise their judicial discretion and grant bail in accordance with the particular facts and circumstances of the case and any conditions that may be necessary.
Based on these considerations, the court directed the Petitioner to file the fresh anticipatory bail application before the Learned session judge and the same is to be decided in accordance with the law.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court disposed of the application.
Case title: Prashant Kumar @ Kumar Prashant Vs The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Case No.: A.B.A. No. 10482 of 2023
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Advocate for the State: Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, A.P.P.
Advocate for the Opposite Party no. 2: Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Advocate, Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
