NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Narayansingh apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 3/95, registered for the offences u/Ss. 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC by P.S. Amayan, District Bhind. Perused the FIR and -other papers. Applicant is named in the FIR. He is said to have fired his gun, but nobody was injured.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant prays that other co -accused have been bailed out earlier and the applicant did not apply for anticipatory bail earlier. Without commenting on the evidence on record, in a serious crime u/S. 302 IPC, since applicant does not fall in any of the categories of being a minor children, woman, old and infirm person, Government servant or any other person who is likely to be harassed if taken into police custody, therefore, I am not considering the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant at this stage.

(3.) AFTER this landmark judgment delivered in the year 1980, High Courts in the country had examined the implications of this judgment and had evolved categories of persons, who are entitled to let the discretion of the High Court under section 438 Cr.P.C. and different categories arc evolved in different States. So far as this Court is concerned, in view of the principles laid down in the case of Guruhbaksh Singh Sibbia, referred above, we have been following the norm that if a person who could be given benefit of proviso to section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. he must be given benefit of anticipatory bail u/S. 438 Cr.P.C. if he has not approached the Magistrate. Besides, we have been also following the principle that in cases of persons who are likely to be harassed in police custody, they may fall in the same category who arc entitled for anticipatory bail and that category can be enumerated as persons who are in permanent government service, who may be falsely implicated and may suffer a lot if they are not given the discretion of anticipatory bail, otherwise, they arc bound to loose their job and livelihood for a number of years during the pendency of trial. Further in cases of persons who are handicapped by any permanent disease or other disability are also considered in the same category to avail of the discretion of anticipatory bail, besides the category mentioned in section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. proviso. Thus, in the matter of exercising discretion of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. the persons who fall in the category of, government servants, minors, women, old and infirm persons, handicapped persons, persons having permanent disability or persons who arc involved in petty cases who are likely to be harassed in police custody, may claim the said discretion. This Court, therefore, is to exercise its discretion for granting anticipatory bail in aforesaid category of cases with due care and caution. For other category of persons, the general law of bail as provided under section 439 Cr.P.C. is already available. It is true that the discretion of granting anticipatory bail has to be exercised sparingly in appropriate cases with due care and caution imposing required conditions.