LexPREM SHANKAR PRASAD versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R. [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1176 1176 PREM SHANKAR PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1209 of 2021) OCTOBER 21, 2021 [M. R. SHAH AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail – FIR lodged by appellant against respondent no.2 for offences punishable under ss.406, 407, 468 and 506 IPC – A warrant of arrest issued by Magistrate – Thereafter, respondent no.2 was absconding and concealed himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest – Magistrate issued a proclamation against respondent no.2 under s.82 CrPC – Thereafter respondent no.2 filed anticipatory bail application before trial court which was dismissed – However, High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application – Complainant filed instant appeal challenging the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.2 – Held: After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent no.2 for the offences punishable under ss.406, 420 of IPC – Thus, it was found that there was a prima facie case against him – Arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate and thereafter proceedings under ss.82-83 of Cr.PC were initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate – High Court just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under ss.82-83 of Cr.PC– The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually – Thus, the High Court committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 ignoring the proceedings under s.82-83 of Cr.PC. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against respondent no.2 – accused for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420 of IPC also. Thus, it was found that there is a prima facie case against the accused. It came on record that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate and thereafter A B C D E F G H 1177 proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC were initiated pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Only thereafter respondent No.2 moved an application before the Trial Court for anticipatory bail which came to be dismissed. [Para 7.1][1181-B-C] 2. Despite the fact that it was brought to the notice of the High Court that respondent No.2-accused was absconding and even the proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC were initiated, the High Court just ignored the aforesaid relevant aspects and granted anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused by observing that the nature of accusation was arising out of a business transaction. The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by Additional Sessions Judge was not at all considered by the High Court. Even the High Court just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82-83 of Cr.PC by simply observing that “be that as it may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually. Thus the High court has committed an error in granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused ignoring the proceedings under Section 82-83 of Cr.PC. [Paras 7.2, 7.3][1182-H; 1183-A-B; 1185-G] 3. Even the observations made by the High Court while granting the anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 – accused that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction and therefore the accused is entitled to the anticipatory bail is concerned, the same cannot be accepted. Even in the case of a business transaction also there may be offences under the IPC more particularly sections 406, 420, 467, 468, etc. What is required to be considered is the nature of allegation and the accusation and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. At this stage, it is required to be noted that respondent No.2 - accused has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420, etc. and a charge-sheet has been filed in the court of Magistrate Court. [Para 8][1185-H; 1186-A-B] PREM SHANKAR PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. A B C D E F G H 1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 6 S.C.R. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 : [2013] 12 SCR 772 – referred to. Case Law Reference [2013] 12 SCR 772 referred to para 4.5 CRIMINAL APPE
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.