Counsel Not Authorized To Argue Facts Not Specifically Pleaded In Anticipatory Bail Application: Allahabad High Court

The applicant who served as a Chief Cashier at a bank sought anticipatory bail after being charged under Sections 408 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code accused of criminal breach of trust in collaboration with a Security Guard at the same bank.

A Bench of Justice Vikram D. Chauhan said, “A counsel can only argue a fact which has been pleaded specifically in the anticipatory bail application. A counsel is not authorized to make statement of fact which has not been specifically pleaded, accordingly, the submission of learned counsel for the applicant in this respect cannot be accepted, neither before this Court any vouchers has been produced nor any other material has been produced to indicate the innocence of the applicant.”

Advocate Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha appeared for the Applicant.

His counsel claimed that the incident was captured on the bank’s CCTV footage. However, when questioned by the Court, the counsel could not reference the specific paragraphs of the affidavit supporting this claim or confirm whether the CCTV footage had been recovered by the police.

The Court underlined that anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy granted in exceptional cases, primarily when a person is falsely implicated. The Court added, “The power of anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in exceptional cases where the person is falsely implicated. Though in many cases it was held that bail is said to be a rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule.”

The Court further remarked, “A person who has committed an offence is not entitled to grant of discretionary jurisdiction of anticipatory bail unless it is shown that the accused is falsely implicated or is entitled for protection of liberty. A person who has violated the law and has not shown exceptional circumstances is not entitled to the benefit of extraordinary jurisdiction. No extraordinary circumstances have been shown by applicant(s) that refusal to grant anticipatory bail would lead to injustice.”

Given the evidence presented in the FIR and the investigation, the Court concluded that the case was substantiated and denied the bail plea.

Cause Title: Manish Kumar v. State of U.P., [2024:AHC:130879]