Appeal Against Rejection Of Anticipatory Bail Is Not Maintainable After Issuance Of Proclamation Order U/s. 82 Cr.P.C.: Jharkhand High Court
|The Jharkhand High Court observed that an appeal against an order of rejection of anticipatory bail application in not maintainable after the passing of a proclamation is issued under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
The Bench dismissed a criminal appeal filed by six accused seeking anticipatory bail in a case involving charges under Sections 323, 341, 504, 354 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act). The accused had challenged the rejection of their anticipatory bail by the trial court.
A Single Bench of Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “In the present case, the Criminal Appeal against the order of rejection of anticipatory bail application was filed on 28.06.2023 and order for issuance or proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C was passed by the learned Court below on 11.08.2023. In between, there was no interim order restraining coercive measure against the appellant was issued by this Court.”
Senior Advocate A.K. Kashyap represented the appellants, while APP Achinto Sen appeared for the respondents.
The complainant had lodged a case against the accused. The complainant claimed that in order to dispossess the complainant, the accused had allegedly conjointly assaulted them and also called their caste name.
The accused argued their case based on the Supreme Court's judgment in State of Haryana v. Dharamraj, maintaining that their appeal should be considered valid despite the proclamation order issued by the trial court. The respondents countered, referring to the Supreme Court's 2021 judgment in the matter of Prem Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, arguing that the anticipatory bail application was not maintainable after the proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
The High Court reiterated the settled position of law established by the Supreme Court in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, explaining that mere filing of anticipatory bail petition cannot be a ground for restraining the investigating agency from proceeding against the accused. The Bench explained that warrants, proclamation and attachment can be issued against the accused unless there was an interim order of no-coercive measure against the appellant issued by the Court where the anticipatory bail application is filed. The Court established that if there was no such interim order and process under Section 82 was issued, that would render the anticipatory bail not maintainable.
Consequently, the Court held that the criminal appeal against the order of rejection of anticipatory bail application was not maintainable.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Appearance:
Appellants: Sr. Advocate A.K. Kashyap; Advocate Lalan Kumar Singh
Respondents: APP Achinto Sen; Advocate Rajesh Kumar