Case Title:
Anurag Dubey (Second bail) Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
Date of Order:
September 20, 2022
Bench:
Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan
Parties:
Petitioners- Anurag Dubey
Opposite Party- State of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy. Home
SUBJECT
This bail application was the second one filed by the applicant after the first one was rejected by the same Court on 04.10.21. The applicant was apprehending arrest under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 307 of the IPC. His first bail plea had been rejected on grounds of him being considered absconding. However, at the time of filing this second bail plea, the circumstances had changed. Therefore, considering the new grounds of application, the Court granted bail under certain conditions.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Section 482, CrPC- This Section was regarding the inherent powers of the High Court. It states that nothing in the Code shall limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order passed by provisions in the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
- Section 82, CrPC- This Section was regarding the procedures of publishing an order proclaiming that an individual against whom a warrant was issued had been concealing himself and he was to be considered an absconder.
OVERVIEW
- The first application for anticipatory bail filed by this appellant was rejected on the grounds that he was an absconder.
- However, this accusation was quashed by an order dated 28.10.21, passed by this Court. Thus the grounds on which the first plea was rejected were not more standing.
- Two other accused persons in this casewere granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
- The appellant had just been through a kidney transplant and thus his health conditions were of sensitive nature which necessitated isolation in order to prevent the spread of infections.
- Thus this second plea was filed on new grounds.
ISSUESRAISED
- Whether an anticipatory bail plea filed after it was rejected once was maintainable if the grounds were fresh?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT
- As the judge who had issued the order rejecting bail for the appellant had been transferred, this second bail plea could be entertained on grounds of maintainability.
- The grounds on which the first bail application was rejected does not stand as of now, because it had been washed off by an order dated 28.10.21 by the High Court’s powers under Section 482 of CrPC, by which the order passed under Section 82 accusing the appellant to be an absconder, was quashed.
- After the rejection of the first bail application of the appellant, two other co-accused in the same case, were granted anticipatory bail by this Court.
- A medical certificate submitted on record shows that the appellant has undergone a kidney transplant, and in such a sensitive health condition, it was necessary for him to be kept in isolation to prevent infections. An arrest in such a condition would be a threat to his life, and also a violation of his fundamental right under Article 21.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY
- FIRs have been lodged from both sides in this case. Charge sheets have been filed for the same.
- Nothing was to be said regarding the health condition of the appellant or the fact that two other co-accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by this same court.
- Learned counsel for the complainant brought the Court’s attention to the counter affidavit filed which states that there have been previous orders by the Supreme Court in which anticipatory bails given to other co-accused persons were set aside and the matter was moved to High Court for reconsideration.
- Since the first bail plea had been rejected, the appellant ought to file his regular bail application in the regular court, rather than filing a second anticipatory bail application in this manner, and then he may seek the benefit of his medical and health condition.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- This second bail plea was considered maintainable because, the grounds on which the first plea was rejected has been quashed, and two other co-accused persons have been granted bail. This makes this second application based on fresh ground.
- Repeated bail pleas on the same grounds have not been entertained by the Supreme Court and they have been duly set aside. However, in this case, the grounds are fresh and new.
- Taking the appellant into custody under such a medical condition of his would endanger his life. However, he may not take benefit of it to refrain from attending trial court proceedings. He is to cooperate with such proceedings to the best of his medical capacity. If found that he is taking advantage of this bail to avoid such proceedings, an application may be filed regarding the same.
- The conditions on which the bail is granted were listed. Such as, the appellant ought to cooperate with the trial court proceedings, he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the case or pressurise or intimidate the prosecution witness, and he shall not leave India. In case of violation of any of these conditions, an application for rejecting his bail could be filed and the Court would reject the same.
- Thus the Court found it appropriate to grant instant anticipatory bail. The appellant shall furnish a bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties each in the like amount.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the Court held that since the present anticipatory bail application was filed on new grounds, it may be considered as a second bail application. The appellant was granted bail taking into consideration his health conditions, and the fact that the ground on which his first plea was rejected does not stand as of now, and that two other co-accused persons had been granted anticipatory bail. On these grounds, anticipatory bail was granted under the conditions listed by the Court. Thus, the application was disposed of.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
