LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus PRADEEP SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 [2013] 12 S.C.R. 772 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PRADEEP SHARMA (Criminal Appeal No. 2049 of 2013) DECEMBER 6, 2013 [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI AND RANJAN GOGOi, J.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: c s.438 rlw s.82 - Anticipatory bail - Respondents, accused of offences punishable u/ss 302 and 120-8 rlw s.34 /PC - Declared absconders - Granted anticipatory bail by High Court - Subsequently released on regular ail by CJM - Held: If anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed 0 offender in terms of s. 82, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail - The power exercisable uls 438 is extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for E holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty - In the instant case, confessional statements of co-accused reveal that respondents administered poisonous substance to deceased - It is supported by statements of other witnesses and medical report - Further, proclamation uls 82 was issued against F respondents - All these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by High Court while granting anticipatory bail - High Court failed to appreciate that where the accused has been declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail G - Impugned orders of High Court are set aside - Consequently, the subsequent order of CJM releasing the accused on bail after taking them into custody in compliance with the impugned order of High Court is a/so set aside. H 772 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. PRADEEP 773 SHARMA The respondents in both the appeals alongwith A others were accused of the offences punishable u/ss 302 and 120-B read with s. 34 IPC, as they were alleged to have administered poisonous substance to one 'RS' and thus caused his death. A charge-sheet was filed against five accused whereas investigation continued against B the two respondents and another as they remained absconding. A proclamation u/s 82 CrPC was issued against the respondents. They filed applications for anticipatory bail, which were allowed by the High Court. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals. In the meantime, c the respondents were enlarged on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The question for consideration before the Court was: whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal D Procedure, 1973 to the respondents/accused when the investigation is pending, and, particularly, both the accused had been absconding all along and not cooperating with the investigation. E Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. The power exercisable u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only F in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. [para 10) [779- E-F] Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B., 2005 (2) SCR 188 = (2005) 4 sec 303- relied on. G 1.2. If anyone is declared as an absconder/ proclaimed offender in terms of s. 82 of the Code, he is H 774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 12 S.C.R. A not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail. In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials i.e., confessional statements of co-accused persons reveals that the respondents administered poisonous substance to the deceased. Further, the statements of witnesses that were B recorded and the report of the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology Government Medical College & Hospital, have confirmed the existence of poison in the food item consumed by the deceased. Further, it is brought to notice of the Court that warrants were issued c for the arrest of the respondents. Since they were not available/traceable, a proclamation u/s 82 of the Code was also issued. All these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by the High Court while granting anticipatory bail and it, without indicating any reason 0 except stating "facts and circumstances of the case", granted an order of anticipatory bail to both the accused. [para 12] [781-E-H; 782-A-B] E Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2012 (7) SCR 469 = (2012) 8 sec 730 -
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.