Karnataka High Court
Sandeep Gururaj vs State Of Karnataka on 15 April, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO 1490 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SANDEEP GURURAJ
S/O GURURAJ VENKAT RAO,
SRINIVAS RAO,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.50, (NEW NO.85),
PUTTANNA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GAUTAM SHREEDHAR BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CUBBON PARK PS,
BENGALURU.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. A.N.S. NADAKARNI, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG
WITH;
SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON
BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.137/2019 OF
CUBBON PARK P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S.120-B, 420, 149, 423, 465, 468, 471, 506 OF IPC ON
THE FILE OF THE VIII ACMM IN C.C.NO.23541/2019.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.03.2024 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON: 20.03.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.04.2024
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused
No.3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., for granting
anticipatory bail in Crime No.137/2019 registered by
Cubbon Park police station, Bengaluru and charge
sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections
120B, 420, 149, 423, 465, 468, 471, 506 of IPC, now
pending on the file of VIII ACMM, Bangalore in C.C.
No.23541/2019.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government
Pleader for the respondent No.1/State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that, a private
complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 in PCR
No.9076/2019 before the Magistrate and got it referred
to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In turn,
the police registered FIR and investigated the matter
and filed charge sheet. It is alleged by the complainant
that he met accused No.1/Praveen Surendiran, an
employee of M/s OPC Assets Solutions Private Limited,
Mumbai. The accused No.2 was software developer.
launched a software based manpower service and
repair centre. Accused No.2 was co-founder of a
company by name M/s Norte Technologies India Pvt.
Ltd. ('NTI Pvt. Ltd.' for short). The complainant and
accused No.2 were 50:50 shareholders and Directors of
the company. The complainant also provided loan of
Rs.2.5 lakhs to accused No.2. The accused
No.1/Praveen Surendrian was helping the complainant
and accused No.2 in marketing while working with a
Mumbai based company, M/s.OPC Asset Solution Pvt.
Ltd., Mumbai. Accused Nos.1 and 2 being close
associates of accused no.3, who was working as
Assistant General Manager-Finance, at Manipal
Education and Manipal Group International Pvt. ltd., at
Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru. They joined the hands
at the office of MEMG, Vittal Mallya Road, Bengaluru.
They hatched criminal conspiracy, forged the signature
of complainant on certain documents, fabricated the
documents to defraud the complainant. It is alleged
that they created a false document in the name of
complainant, as he had resigned from the post of
Director and they said to be Board of Directors of the
company. Thereby, they used forged documents as
genuine as that of the respondent/ complainant who
appointed accused No.7-Nagaraju an Auditor. Accused
No.6 was assisting the company for maintaining the
books and by using the fake documents, the 50% share
of the complainant has been transferred. The
complainant had invested huge amount in the
company. The complainant also refused to sign such
document. Hence, he has demanded his share from the
company, but they threatened him with dire
consequences and other various allegations in the
complaint for taking action for the offences punishable
under Sections 420, 120B, 465, 468, 471, 506 of IPC.
He has lodged the complaint to the police, as well as
higher officers, they have not taken the complaint.
Hence, he has approached the Magistrate by filing the
complaint.
4. After registering the case, the investigation
was under progress, the petitioner was said to be
arrested and he was in jail in C.C.No.7559/2019. The
police filed an application before the Magistrate in C.C
No.23541/2019 for body warrant. Accordingly, the
learned Magistrate issued the body warrant to the
accused through jail authorities under Section 267 of
Cr.P.C. The petitioner was produced in the present
case on 02.08.2019 and on the request of the police,
the petitioner was given police custody till 14.08.2019.
Thereafter, he was produced back before the court and
was remanded to judicial custody.
5. It is further contended, subsequently that the
petitioner was granted bail by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the earlier case in C.C No.7559/2019 and he
was released on bail. Subsequently, he has moved a
memo for recalling the body warrant before the
Magistrate. Accordingly, the body warrant has been
recalled and the petitioner was released from the jail.
Subsequently, recalling the body warrant has been
challenged before the Sessions Judge, wherein the
Sessions Judge in a Revision Petition No.33/2021 had
set aside the order of the Magistrate and stated that
the petitioner shall move bail application before the
Magistrate. In the meanwhile, the learned Magistrate
issued NBW against the petitioner, which is challenged
before this court in writ petition, where the coordinate
bench of this court has cancelled the NBW and directed
to seek bail before the Court. Subsequently, the
petitioner moved bail petition under Section 437 of
Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate. In the meanwhile, he
approached this Court for granting anticipatory bail.
6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is
apprehending the arrest in the hands of the police and
the coordinate bench of this court had directed to
obtain bail, though he was in custody in a connected
matter, he is not in custody in this matter. Therefore,
it is contended that most of the investigation has been
completed, additional charge sheet has been filed and
he is not required for any interrogation. Hence, prayed
for granting anticipatory bail.
7. Per contra, learned senior counsel for defacto-
complainant has seriously objected the petition, mainly
on the maintainability of the anticipatory bail
contending that, the petitioner was already arrested by
the police and investigating the matter by obtaining the
body warrant, in this case. Subsequently, he was
remanded to judicial custody in this case. Therefore,
anticipatory bail application is not maintainable, he has
to move regular bail petition before the Magistrate
under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., as he has already filed
such application, which is kept pending. Therefore,
prayed for dismissing the petition.
8. As a reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, as well as the coordinate bench of this court, in
respect of maintainability of the anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for
respondent also relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to show that the
petitioner was already arrested and he was in custody.
Therefore, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Both the learned counsel relied upon the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High court.
9. Having heard the arguments of both the
counsel, the point that arises for my consideration are;
1) Whether the anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable, as per the contention of
the respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner is
entitled for anticipatory bail?
10. Before considering the bail on merits of the
case, it is necessary for this court to answer the
objection raised by the respondent on the ground, that
the anticipatory bail is not maintainable, as the
petitioner was already arrested and taken into the
custody in this case. It is not in dispute that the
petitioner named as accused No.3 in Crime
No.137/2019 and later converted in
C.C.No.23541/2019 for the offences punishable under
Sections 120B, 149, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471, 506 of
IPC.
11. It is an admitted fact, that the petitioner was
arrested and he was remanded to the judicial custody
in C.C.No.7559/2019. Learned Magistrate issued body
warrant in C.C.No.23541/2019 under Section 267 of
Cr.P.C. on 2.8.2019. Accordingly, the petitioner was
produced in C.C.No.23541/2019 from the jail and in
C.C.No.7559/2019, he was remanded to the police
custody from 2.8.2019 to 14.8.2019.
12. Subsequently, the petitioner said to be
released on bail in C.C.No.7559/2019 and thereafter
the petitioner filed an application for recalling the body
warrant in C.C.No.23541/2019. Learned Magistrate
recalled the body warrant and petitioner was released
from the jail. Subsequently, the complainant
challenged the order of recalling the body warrant by
filing the revision petition before the Sessions judge in
Revision Petition No.33/2021 and the Sessions judge
set aside the order. However, the same was challenged
by the accused before the High Court in
Crl.P.No.10125/2021. In the meanwhile, NBW was
issued by the learned Magistrate against this petitioner,
the petitioner also moved an application under Section
437 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, in view of the cancelling
the NBW by the coordinate bench of the High court,
directing the petitioner to approach the court for
granting bail/anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the
petitioner once again before this court for grant of
anticipatory bail, which is under challenge on the
ground of maintainability.
13. Now the custody of the accused in
C.C.No.7559/2019 and the accused was brought to the
court under production of warrant under Section 267 of
Cr.P.C. and was produced in C.C.No.23541/2019 and
remanding to judicial custody amounts to custody of
the petitioner in this case or the custody is only in the
main case and not in the present case. If the petitioner
was considered as custody in the present case in Crime
No.137/2019 with respect to C.C.No.22543/2019, then
anticipatory bail is not maintainable. On the other
hand, if custody of the petitioner is not considered as
custody in the present case, as he was only brought
from the other case or main case in C.C.No.7559/2019
under Section 267 of Cr.P.C., cannot be considered as
custody in this case, then anticipatory bail is
maintainable.
14. In this regard, the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the judgment of the coordinate
bench reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1823:ILR
2023 Kar 2081 in the case of M.Shashidhara and
Anr., V State of Karnataka by Jayanagar Police,
wherein the coordinate bench of this court by
considering various judgments and considering 267 of
Cr.P.C., has held at paragraph 26, 27, 28, 29 as
under:-
"26. Having said thus, the prosecution
expressed few apprehensions. It is
common experience that the Learned Trial
Judges, often use the expression that "
body warrant extended". In some cases, "
re- issue body warrant and judicial custody
extended". It is pertinent to note that while
exercising the power under Section 267 Cr.
P.C., the Court before whom a person who
has already in custody is produced before
the Court which has issued order u/s. 267
Cr. P.C., will not have any authority to
extend the body warrant or give him to the
custody in the said case. If his presence is
required further, fresh order is to be
issued.
27. As could be seen from the contents
of Forms supra, when once the purpose is
served for a particular day/days, the order
passed under Section 267 Cr. P.C., seized
to exist and the accused, who has been
produced before the Court or before the
Investigating Agency as the case may be
will have to return the accused to the
judicial custody, wherein he is originally
remanded by the orders of the Court in the
original case. Therefore, it is crystal clear
that the Learned Magistrate and the district
judges as the case may be will not have
the power to order for " body warrant
extended/ judicial custody extended" in
case where an accused is produced before
that Court under the orders passed under
Section 267 Cr. P.C., and such practice
needs to be discontinued henceforth.
28. It is the further apprehension of the
prosecution that an accused is custody may
be necessary for investigation in several
other cases especially when the accused is
a known criminal. When he is enlarged on
bail in one case, apprehending the very
same accused again in respect of other
cases/s would be a herculean task and
therefore, the State machinery would be
put to un-necessary hardship. Needless to
emphasize that a suitable mechanism
needs to be evolved by the Home
Department to protect their interest to
meet such contingency.
29. It is to be noted that an web
application is developed by NIC (National
Information Centre) called E-prisons It is
always open for the Home Department to
make necessary and suitable module in the
said web application to track an accused
who is already in custody in one case,
number of body warrants issued against
him and number of cases, where he is
required for investigation. All those
features can be made available in the said
web application whereby there would be a
proper mechanism by which, State
machinery would be made known about
release of an accused in a given case. It
would probably sufficient enough to
safeguard the apprehension expressed by
the prosecution Department. It is to be
clarified at any rate, such apprehensions
would not permit the Jail Authorities to
detain a person who has the benefit of
grant or bail by a duly constituted Court
even for a minute under the pretext of
body warrant issued in another case."
15. The coordinate bench relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Arun Krishna Sail Vs State of Karnataka (in
WPHC.No.243/2014 dated 26.12.2014) wherein the
Division bench has held that "this court after discussing
the fact and law on the point directed that concerned
person should be set at free if there is no order passed
by any court against the said person directing him to be
in judicial custody". In the said case the judgment
reported in 1987 SUPP SCC 143 where the apex
court observed that detention of the concerned person
in jail is illegal in as much as there was no warrant for
detaining him in jail after his acquittal in two Criminal
matters, merely because of issuance of production
warrant by any other Criminal court, the said person
cannot be continued in prison, without there being
specific order relating to his arrest and the coordinate
bench has held that the production warrant in the
present case from some other case cannot be deemed
to be a remand in the present case with the police
custody.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that when the warrant was issued by the
court under Section 267 of Cr.P.C. and accordingly the
petitioner was produced in C.C.No.23541/2019 i.e., in
Crime No.137/2019 he was given to the police custody
and later he was remanded to the judicial custody in
the present case. Therefore, it is not the case of the
petitioner, that he was not in custody in this case and
he was only brought under body warrant. In support of
his contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied
upon the judgment of State of Haryana and Ors Vs
Dinesh Kumar in (2008) 3 SCC 222. On the other
hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
while passing the order, the coordinate bench has not
considered the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in CBI Vs Anupam Kulkarni case reported in
(1992) 3 SCC 141 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held in the said case as under;-
" 2. An important question that arises
for consideration is whether a person
arrested and produced before the nearest
Magistrate as required under Section 167(1)
Code of Criminal Procedure can still be
remanded to police custody after the expiry
of the initial period of 15 days. We propose
to consider the issue elaborately as there is
no judgment of this Court on this point. The
facts giving rise to this question may briefly
be stated. A case relating to abduction of
four Bombay based diamond merchants and
one Shri Kulkarni was registered at Police
Station Tughlak Road, New Delhi, on
September 16, 1991 and the investigation
was entrusted to C.B.I. During investigation
it was disclosed that not only the four
diamond merchants but also Shri Kulkarni,
who is the respondent before us and one
driver Babulal were kidnapped between
September 14 and 15, 1991 from two Hotels
at Delhi. It emerged during investigation that
the said Shri Kulkarni was one of the
associates of the accused one Shri. R.
Chaudhary responsible for the said
kidnapping of the diamond merchants. On
the basis of some available material Shri.
Kulkarni was arrested on October 4, 1991
and was produced before the Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on October 5,
1991. On the request of the C.B.I. Shri
Kulkarni was remanded to judicial custody till
October 11, 1991. On October 10, 1991 a
test identification parade was arranged but
Shri Kulkarni refused to co-operate and his
refusal was recorded by the Munsif
Magistrate concerned. On October 11, 1991
an application was moved by the
investigating office seeking police custody of
Shri Kulkarni pretended to be indisposed and
he was taken to the Hospital the same
evening where he remained confined on the
ground of illness up to October 21,1991 and
then he was referred to Cardiac Out-patient
Department of G.B. Pant Hospital. Up to
October 29, 1991 Shri Kulkarni was again
remanded to judicial custody by the
Magistrate and thereafter was sent to Jail. In
view of the fact that the Police could not take
him into police custody all these days the
investigating officer again applied to the
court of Chief Metropolitian Magistrate for
police custody of Shri Kulkarni. The Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate relying on a
judgment of the Delhi High Court in State
(Delhi Admn.) v Dharam Pal refused police
remand. Questioning the same a revision
was filed before that High Court of Delhi. The
learned Single Judge in the first instance
considered whether there was material to
make out a case of kidnapping or abduction
against Shri Kulkarni and observed that even
the abducted persons namely the four
diamond merchants do not point an accusing
finger against Shri Kulkarni and that at any
rate Shri Kulkarni himself has been
interrogated in jail for almost seven days by
the C.B.I. and nothing has been divulged by
him, therefore it is not desirable to confine
him in jail and in the view of the matter he
granted him bail. The High Court, however,
did not decide the question whether or not
after the expiry of the initial period of 15
days a person can still be remanded to police
custody by the Magistrate before whom he
was produced. The said order is challenged
in these appeals."
17. Learned counsel also relied upon the
judgment of the Madras high court in the case of State
Vs K.N.Nehru, 2011 SCC OnLine a Division Bench of
Madras High Court by relying upon the Anupam
Kulkarni's case stated supra has held at para 42 as
under:-
"42. From the above discussions the
following conclusions emerge:
• 1) When an Accused is involved in
more than one case and has been
remanded to judicial custody in
connection with one case, there is no
legal compulsion for the
Investigating Officer in the other
case to effect a formal arrest of the
Accused. He has got discretion either
to arrest or not to arrest the Accused
in the latter case. The Police Officer
shall not arrest the Accused in a
mechanical fashion. He can resort to
arrest only if there are grounds and
need to arrest.
• 2) If the Investigating Officer in the
latter case decides to arrest the
Accused, he can go over to the
prison where the Accused is already
in judicial remand in connection with
some other case and effect a formal
arrest as held in Anupam Kulkarni
case. Therefore, there is no legal
compulsion for the production of the
Accused before the Magistrate within
24 hours from the said formal arrest.
• 3) For the production of the Accused
before the Court after such formal
arrest, the Police Officer shall make
an Application before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate for issuance
of P.T. Warrant without delay. If the
conditions required in Section 267 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure are
satisfied, the Magistrate shall issue
P.T. Warrant for the production of
the Accused on or before a specified
date before the Magistrate. When
the Accused is so transmitted from
prison and produced before the
Jurisdictional Magistrate in
pursuance of the P.T. Warrant, it will
be lawful for the Police officer to
make a request to the learned
Magistrate for authorising the
detention of the Accused either in
Police custody or in judicial custody.
• 4) After considering the said
request, the representation of the
Accused and after perusing the case
diary and other relevant materials,
the learned Magistrate shall pass
appropriate orders under Section
167(1) of the Code of Criminal
Procedures.
• 5) If the Police officer decides not to
effect formal arrest, it will be lawful
for him to straightaway make an
Application to the Jurisdictional
Magistrate for issuance of P.T.
Warrant for transmitting the Accused
form prison before him for the
purpose of remand. On such
request, if the Magistrate finds that
the requirements of Section 267 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure are
satisfied, he shall issue P.T. Warrant
for the production of the Accused on
or before a specified date.
• 6) When the Accused is so
transmitted and produced before the
Magistrate in pursuance of the P.T.
Warrant from prison, the Police
Officer will be entitled to make a
request to the Magistrate for
authorising the detention of the
Accused either in Police custody or in
judicial custody. On such request,
after following the procedure
indicated above, the Magistrate Shall
pass appropriate orders either
remanding the Accused either to
judicial custody or Police custody
under Section 167(1) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure or dismissing the
request after recording the reasons.
• 7) Before the Accused is transmitted
and produced before the Court in
pursuance of a P.T. Warrant in
connection with a latter case, if he
has been ordered to be released in
connection with the former case, the
Jail Authority shall set him at liberty
and return the P.T. Warrant to the
Magistrate making necessary
endorsement and if only the Accused
continues to be in judicial custody, in
connection with the former case, he
can be transmitted in pursuance of
P.T. Warrant in connection with the
latter case."
18. Learned counsel for the respondent has
contended that while considering the petition by
coordinate bench of this court in Shashidhara's case not
considered the case of Anupam kulkarni's case of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. On perusal of the order of the
coordinate bench in Shashidhar's case, where the
accused was brought on the body warrant for answer
the charges in a particular case and sent back to the
same custody of the previous case, where the accused
was in custody and it is pertinent to note while referring
the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in
Shashidhara's case, where the Division Bench has held
until there was an arrest or order of remand in a
present case and directing the petitioner to be in
judicial custody, otherwise the accused cannot be in
custody in the present case, as he has to be sent back
in the previous case or earlier case. But the fact of
case, in Shashidara's case is altogether different from
this case on hand. Wherein the body warrant has been
issued by the Magistrate in Crime No.137/2019 under
Section 267 of Cr.P.C. issuing the body warrant to the
jail authorities where the petitioner was in custody in
C.C.No.7559/2019 and admittedly the
accused/petitioner produced before the court in
C.C.No.23541/2019 on 2.8.2019 and he was remanded
to the police custody till 14.8.2019. Thereafter, the
petitioner was produced before the Magistrate in Crime
No.137/2019 in C.C.No.23541/2019 and he was
remanded to judicial custody in the present case. It is
not the order of sending back the accused in the
original case, but the Magistrate took the custody of the
petitioner in this case in crime No.137/2019 and given
police custody and subsequently remanded to judicial
custody on 14.8.2019. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the petitioner was not taken to custody in the
present case. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted
bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earlier case,
however, the petitioner was deemed to be in custody in
the present case in Crime No. no.137/2019. Therefore,
the petitioner is required to seek bail under Section 437
of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate instead of seeking bail,
he has filed memo for cancelling the body warrant and
accordingly the learned Magistrate recalled the body
warrant and without obtaining bail, the accused was set
free in the criminal case in Crime no.137/2019.
Therefore, the complainant approached the Sessions
Judge for cancelling the order of the Magistrate and the
learned Sessions Judge rightly set aside the order of
the Magistrate and directed to secure the presence of
the accused. Hence, the NBW was issued by the
Magistrate but ultimately the NBW has been cancelled
by the coordinate bench of this court. However, the
coordinate bench of this court, while cancelling the
NBW directed the petitioner to approach the court for
grant of bail/anticipatory bail in WP.No.1530/2024 in
case of Sandep Gururaj Vs The Station House
officer and Anr is as below,
"Order
Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order;-
1. This petition allowed in part
2. The order dated
10.1.2024 passed in
C.C.No.23541/2019 by 8th
ACMM, Bangalore stands
obliterated.
3. Petitioner is at liberty to
either revive the application
pending seeking enlargement on
bail/anticipatory bail or file fresh
appliation for anticipatory
bail/bail.
19. On perusal of the order of the coordinate
bench, the coordinate bench has not stated whether the
petitioner approached the court for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. or regular bail under
Section 437/439 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is incumbent
on this court to consider whether the petitioner can
approach the court for anticipatory bail or regular bail.
20. Considering all these facts above, I am of the
view that once the accused was secured under body
warrant from the original case, in C.C.No.7559/2019
and taken to custody in C.C.No.23541/2019 and he was
given to the police custody and in pursuance of the
police custody the police interrogated and seized some
incriminating evidence at the instance of accused and
later on 14.8.2019 he was produced before the court
and inturn he was remanded to judicial custody in
C.C.No.23541/2019 in Crime No.137/2019. Therefore,
I am of the view that the petitioner was taken to
custody on 2.8.2019 through the body warrant under
Section 267 of Cr.P.C. and he was remanded to police
custody on 14.8.2019 to judicial custody. Therefore,
for all practical purposes the petitioner was in custody
or deemed to be in judicial custody in this case from
14.8.2019. Therefore, it is the petitioner who is
required to approach the court for seeking regular bail,
though the petitioner rightly filed application under
Section 437 of Cr.P.C., to the Magistrate, but it was
kept in abeyance and filed anticipatory bail. The
sessions judge rightly set aside the order of recalling
the body warrant without granting bail by the
Magistrate in a serious offence where the money
laundering activities are said to be involved by the
petitioner. Therefore, once the petitioner was in
custody and jailed in the present case, he has to seek
regular bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C. and thereafter
439 of Cr.P.C. and he cannot seek anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. .
Therefore in my view, the anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable and
therefore considering the case on merits for granting
anticipatory bail, does not arise. The petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is liable to be dismissed as not
maintainable.
21. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following
order:
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed as not
maintainable.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AKV
CT:SK
