SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

CITATION	SLP (Crl.) No. 7940 of 2023]
DATE OF JUDGEMENT	14th March 2024
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	SRIKANT UPADHYAY AND ORS.
RESPONDENT	THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR.
BENCH	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMARHON’BLE SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.

INTRODUCTION

The case of Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. is of a special leave petition. This is against the order dated 04.04.2023 in CRLM No.67668 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby and where under the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant was dismissed. The FIR No. 79 of 2020, was registered at Govindganj Police Station, Bihar under Section 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999. The Trial Court issued a summons for the appellants to appear in court but the accused didn’t appear and the Trial court issued the bailable warrants. The accused applied for regular bail and the trial court granted the bail. The complainant applied for cancellation of bail, which was approved by the Court. After being informed that their bail had been cancelled, they appealed to the Sessions Court to challenge the order, but their appeal was unsuccessful. To obtain anticipatory bail, they then went to the High Court. Meanwhile, the Trial Court issued a process under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, based on the proclamation under Section 82(1) of the same Code. The question at hand was whether an anticipatory bail plea being pending is enough to prevent the trial court from declaring the absconding accused under Section 82 of the CrPC.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants filed for anticipatory bail which is related to FIR No. 79 of 2020, was registered at Govindganj Police Station, Bihar under Section 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.
2. Although the Trial Court issued both bailable and non-bailable warrants against the appellants, they failed to challenge or appear in court. The appellants were issued with both bailable and non-bailable warrants by the Trial Court. However, they chose not to contest or attend the court proceedings. In the meanwhile, the appellants herein moved a bail-cum-surrender application (described as such by them), before the Trial Court. But in fear of arrest, they withdrew it.
3. Later on, the appellants herein approached the High Court by filing CRLM No.67668 of 2022 seeking anticipatory bail while their non-bailable warrants were pending.
4.  Under the non-appearance of the appellants despite the earlier order for their appearance and the issuance of non-bailable warrants, the trial court proclaimed under Section 82(1) of the Cr. PC. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 83 of the Cr.PC was initiated.
5. The appeal was further dismissed by the Hon’ble Patna High Court.
6. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court after the Patna High Court rejected their request for anticipatory bail. The High Court had issued non-bailable warrants and proclamations against the accused for disobeying court orders and delaying the proceedings.

ISSUE RAISED

1. Can pending anticipatory bail applications stop warrants and proclamations?

2. Does failure to appear in court constitute evasion of arrest or absconding?

3. Is filing an anticipatory bail application alone a valid defense for non-compliance with court procedures and warrants?

4. Does the absence of an interim order in bail application bar the court from issuing proclamations or proceedings under Section 83 of Cr.PC?

5. Can consistent disobedience of court orders and attempts to delay proceedings disqualify a defendant from seeking anticipatory bail?

CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT

• During the appeal, Mr. Basant R., the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, cited numerous legal precedents to bolster their arguments.
• The Senior Counsel for the appellants argues that despite a pending non-bailable warrant, the application for anticipatory bail must be considered on its own merits. The application for pre-arrest bail should not be dismissed on the given grounds. They claimed that they were simply exercising their rights to obtain anticipatory bail.
• The counsel cited the following cases to support their arguments:-

1. Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2022) 14 SCC 516 [Para 3]
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171 [Para 3]
3. Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 7330 [Para 3]
   

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT

• The counsel, Mr. Anshul Narayan representing the State strongly opposed the propositions put forth by the appellants.
• It is argued that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and initiation of proceedings under Section 82 of the Cr.PC is justiciable. The legal system must uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the treatment of individuals, and this can only be achieved through a transparent and just process.
• In the absence of interim protection, a pending application for anticipatory bail does not guarantee pre-arrest bail. Subordinate courts usually wait for High Court orders before proceeding with any action. Even if there is a pending application, it may not be maintainable.
• Anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr. PC is an exceptional power that should be used sparingly to prevent harassment or humiliation of a person for the complainant’s vendetta.

The counsel cited the following cases to support their arguments: 

1. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J.Mannan & Anr., 2010 (1) SCC 679 [Para 8].
2. Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. V. State of Gujarat, 2004 SCC Online Guj 345 [Para 19].

• The appellants repeatedly defied the law by filing bail applications when they were wanted by the authorities. Their claim that they were not evading the arrest or absconding, but merely pursuing their right to apply for anticipatory bail, must be evaluated in light of these facts.
• They argued that without interim protection, a non-bailable warrant or proceedings under Section 82, Cr. PC can be initiated by the court.

JUDGEMENT

The topic of discussion was the refusal of bail to a proclaimed offender or absconder as per Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’). The discussion in the Court referred to the case of Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 516. The decision was made after referring to two other cases, State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171, and Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730.

Justice C.T. Ravi Kumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed, “There can be no room for raising a contention that when an application is filed for anticipatory bail, it cannot be adjourned without passing an order of interim protection. A bare perusal of Section 438 (1), Cr. PC would reveal that taking into consideration the factors enumerated thereunder the Court may either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail.”
The court’s ruling stated that the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail would not prevent the trial court from issuing/proceeding with steps for proclamation and taking steps under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under the law, in the absence of any interim order. The court further clarified that once a warrant of arrest or proclamation is issued, the applicant would not be entitled to seek anticipatory bail. However, the court still holds the power to grant pre-arrest bail in extreme and exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

ANALYSIS

The Court made a decision in a case where the appellant argued that they did not appear before the Court on the issuance of bailable warrants. However, they moved bail applications even after the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC. The Court noted that the other co-accused appeared before the Court and obtained regular bail under the issuance of bailable warrants. The appellants, on the other hand, defied the authority of law by moving applications while knowingly avoiding arrest. The Court referred to Section 70(2) of CrPC, which mandates that every warrant issued must remain in force until canceled by the Court or executed. The Court clarified that the bailable and non-bailable warrants in this case were neither canceled nor executed.

It is crucial to note that individuals can face further legal proceedings when they fail to attend in compliance with the proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). This is due to the provisions set out in Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which refer to “Judge,” “Court of Justice,” and “Public Servant,” and Sections 174 and 174A of IPC. Therefore, it is imperative to abide by these regulations to avoid any legal consequences.

In the absence of an interim order, the pendency of an application for anticipatory bail will not prevent the Trial Court from taking steps for proclamation, or from taking steps under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This is in accordance with the law.

CONCLUSION

 The court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be used sparingly and with great care. It stressed the importance of accused individuals following legal procedures and submitting themselves to the authority of the law, even when exercising their legal rights. The court reiterated that the power to grant anticipatory bail is extraordinary and should be used with caution. It highlighted that the appellants consistently refused to obey court orders and failed to appear before the trial court, even after warrants and proclamations had been issued. Due to their conduct and attempts to delay proceedings, the court concluded that the appellants were not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

REFERENCES

1. https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=17365
2. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100079034

This Article is written by Vibha, a student of CCS University; and an intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.