BIMALADAK Vs. STATE
LAWS(CAL)-1996-10-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on October 08,1996

BIMALADAK Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

HEMANTA KUMAR NAYAK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2000-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATACHALALAH VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2003-7-23] [REFERRED TO]
NATTURASU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1998-1-26] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

R.BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.)The point came to be debated at the bar is whether the submission of charge-sheet of a non-bailable offence entails forfeiture of right to anticipatory bail. The rival contention is that, that submission of the charge-sheet docs not preclude or disentitle any petitioner to anticipatory bail merely because the charge-sheet has seen the light of the day.
(2.)In adjudging the rival contentions, it is worthwhile to mention, since loaded with legion of judicial precedents that there is a sharp distinction and difference between Sections 437 and 438 of the Cr. P.C. The considerations of granting post arrest bail and pre-arrest bail are mutually exclusive of each other impelling the Court to consider the circumstances when such bail could be granted, Section 437 is fastened with discretion of the Court which is patently absent in considering the application for anticipatory bail by Court objectively.
(3.)In the matter of according the prayer for bail, the Court should be circumspect when the offence complained of is non-bailable, in particular, where the trial has not yet commenced and, therefore, the Court is saddled with an obligation to take into consideration a variety of factors and circumstances about the gravity of the offence, the character of the evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of the presence of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of a witness being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations. The above was endorsed by the Apex Court in State v. Jasphal Singh Gil, (1984) 3 SCC 555 : (1984 Cri LJ 1211). Thus, the matter in connection with the grant or refusal of bail invites judicious exercise of discretion by the Court on merits. The upshots of the judicial decisions have established that the Court in granting bail must consider the serious nature of the offence along with other associated factors listed above. The same view has not been disturbed by any other decision of the Courts of our country.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.