The Supreme Court in one of its order this week has observed that it is totally an option for a party to apply for anticipatory bail instead of regular bail post filling of charge-sheet.

The Bench comprising of Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy ruled that even if it is kept open for the parties to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge-sheet, the same doesn't impede them to apply for an anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

Brief Facts of Case

The petitioners herein are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. They are being prosecuted for offences u/s 323, 498A, 304B IPC r/w Section 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Before the charge sheet was filed, the petitioner sought for anticipatory bail before the Supreme Court and was accordingly granted so.

While granting bail, the Top Court had observed that pursuant to filing of charge sheet, it was open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for the Regular Bail before the Competent Court.

Upon filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners, however moved an anticipatory bail plea before High Court.

The High Court rejected the petitioner's 'second anticipatory bail application' while referring to the Top Court's order granting them the same first time. The Court observed that there was no question of filing a second anticipatory bail application and the applicants should have complied with SC direction by surrendering before the Lower Court and moving for regular bail  instead.

Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present application before Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Observation

The Court observed:

"Merely because it was kept open for the petitioners to surrender and apply for Regular Bail after filing of the charge sheet, the same does not preclude the petitioners to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. after filing of the charge sheet."

 Rejecting the Respondent's arguement, that the same is a second anticipatory bail application, the Court said:

"It also cannot be said, that same is a second application for grant of anticipatory bail as pleaded by learned counsel appearing for respondents, on the same cause of action."

The Court thus termed the case to be fit for anticipatory bail. It stated: 

"Further it is also brought to our notice that the husband of the deceased was granted Regular Bail after he was arrested. This Court while issuing notice also granted protection to the petitioners from arrest. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail."

 The Court thus set aside the impugned order accordingly.

Read Order Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :

 
Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws