Anticipatory Bail Is Neither A Passport To Commission Of Offence Nor A Shield Against Serious Accusation Adversely Affecting Society: Gujarat HC
The Gujarat High Court has said that an anticipatory bail order is neither a passport to the commission of an offence nor a shield against any serious accusation which adversely affects the society.
The Court was deciding an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by an a man arrayed as accused in an FIR registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
A Single Bench of Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar observed, “The object of anticipatory bail is that person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. In present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out. It is needless to say that order under Section 438 of CrPC is not a passport to the commission of offence nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society.”
The Bench also said that when an investigation is at preliminary stage if, anticipatory bail is granted, it may hamper the investigation and therefore, to find out the involvement of other persons, custodial interrogation is also necessary.
Advocate HB Champavat represented the applicant while Addl. Public Prosecutor Shruti Pathak represented the respondent.
Brief Facts -
The applicant was facing serious charge of offence of forgery pursuant to which he created forged documents and appeared in competitive examination for the post of Clerk by adopting illegal means on behalf of some other person. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was falsely dragged in the matter and he had nothing to do with the offence. Further, it was contended that the applicant did not play any active role insofar as offence of forgery in the FIR. The alleged offence took place in the year 2014 whereas the FIR was filed in the year 2016 based on private FSL report.
Further, the applicant was shown as absconder in the charge-sheet but the police never visited the place of the present applicant. Further, the applicant was ready and willing to cooperate and join the investigation as per the counsel and as now nothing was required to be recovered or discovered from the applicant, he requested to allow the application as there was no requirement of custodial interrogation. On the other hand, APP appearing for the State opposed the application and stated that though the charge-sheet was filed, the applicant was shown as absconding in column No.2 of the charge-sheet as he was absconding since 2016.
The High Court after considering the above submissions made by the counsel for parties noted, “In so far the competitive examination is concerned, misconduct, misbehaviour, malpractices and cheating is required to be dealt with strictly. The purity of the examination is of paramount consideration and in the competitive examination where many incumbent candidates burn their midnight oil to secure the government job and are eagerly waiting for the government jobs, they are ultimately deprived due to such unscrupulous elements and their dishonest activity and malpractice.”
The Court further said that no complaint has been made with a view to humiliate or tarnish the image of the applicant. Considering the allegation made in the FIR, it observed that for the qualitative investigation, presence of applicant is required and custodial interrogation is necessary.
“… prima facie it appears that accused has played active role and qualitative investigation is necessary in the matter. … When serious offences are disclosed and involvement of an accused is prima facie established then, the Court would be loath to lean in favour of grant of pre-arrest bail in absence of any other overriding considerations. This Court is conscious of the safeguards provided under Section 438 and concept of the personal liberty. But herein, this court is of considered view that, the present offence is committed very smartly and in very planned and methodical manner which is not just an offence against any individual rather the largest societal interest and in such circumstances, the delicate balance is required to be maintained between two rights one against the personal liberty and second is societal interest”, held the Court.
It added that arrest is part of the process of investigation and intended to secure several purposes in which the accused may provide information, during the discovery of material facts and relevant information.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.
Cause Title- Ajayraj @Vijendrasinh Kirodilal Meena v. State of Gujarat
