STATE OF HARYANA versus DHARAMRAJ

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 705 · Decided: 29-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 10 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 705 : 2023 INSC 784
705
CASE DETAILS
STATE OF HARYANA
v.
DHARAMRAJ
(Criminal Appeal No. 2635 of 2023)
AUGUST 29, 2023
[AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH AND S.V.N. BHATTI, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: In instant appeal, the State seeks cancellation 
of anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent by the Single Judge of the 
High Court.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Pre arrest bail – FIR 
u/ss. 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 427 IPC with additional charges 
u/ss. 186, 353 and 364 against the respondent – Grant of anticipatory bail 
to the respondent by the High Court – Cancellation of:
Held: Much like bail, grant of anticipatory bail is to be exercised with 
judicial discretion – Each case turns on its own facts and merits – On facts, 
respondent’s application u/s. 438 should not have been entertained, as he was 
a proclaimed oﬀ ender – Respondent without ﬁ rst successfully assailing the 
order declaring him as a proclaimed oﬀ ender, could not have proceeded to 
seek anticipatory bail – Furthermore, it was not proper for the High Court to 
have granted anticipatory bail – Declaration of proclaimed oﬀ ender subsisting 
on the date of the impugned order, it cannot be accepted that the respondent 
was entitled to ‘reform and course correct’– Though in an exceptional and rare 
case, this Court or the High Courts can consider a plea seeking anticipatory 
bail, despite the applicant being a proclaimed oﬀ ender, however, no exceptional 
situation arises in the instant case – Impugned order granting anticipatory bail 
to the respondent set aside.[Paras 12, 16 and 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 
SCR 526; Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan (2004) 7 SCC 528; Prasanta 
706
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; 
Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar Alias Polia (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529; 
Bhagwan Singh v. Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak 2023 INSC 761 : 2023 SCC 
OnLine SC 1059; Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994] 6 
Suppl. SCR 69; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693; X v. State 
of Telangana (2018) 16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466; XXX v. Union Territory 
of Andaman & Nicobar Islands 2023 INSC 767 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1062; 
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980] 3 SCR 
383; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1 : [2020] 2 SCR 
1; Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 : 
[2010] 15 SCR 201; Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518; 
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 : [2014] 8 SCR 128; Md. 
Asfak Alam v. State of Jharkhand 2023 INSC 660 2023 SCC OnLine SC 892; 
Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 730 : [2012] 7 SCR 469; State of 
Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma (2014) 2 SCC 171 : [2013] 12 SCR 772; 
Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar 2021 SCC OnLine SC 955; Abhishek 
v. State of Maharashtra (2022) 8 SCC 282 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction: Criminal Appeal No. 2635 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.12.2021 of the High Court of 
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRM-M No. 49115 of 2021.
Appearances:
Dr. Hemant Gupta, AAG, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Monica Anand Kumar, 
Ms. Payal Gupta, Shivang Jain, Keshav Mittal, Ms. Sabarni Som, Advs. for the 
Appellant.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal ﬁ led by the State of Haryana seeks cancellation of 
anticipatory bail granted to the sole respondent vide Order dated 03.12.2021 
707
STATE OF HARYANA v. DHARAMRAJ
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”) passed in CRM-M 
No.49115/2021 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and 
Haryana at Chandigarh. The respondent is accused in First Information Report 
No.0239 dated 31.07.2020 at Police Station Badshahpur, Gurugram lodged under 
Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 341, 342 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 
1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”). Later, Sections 186, 353 and 364 of 
the IPC were also included.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in the 
background of the nature of the allegations and the materials collected as 
well as the respondent ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.