Anticipatory Bail Plea Invalid Without Interim Protection and After Proclamation U/S 82 CrPC: Jharkhand HC

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court, presided over by Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary, dismissed the criminal appeal against the rejection of anticipatory bail in the case of Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar and others versus The State of Jharkhand and Videshi Paswan. The case, registered as Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 421 of 2023, involved appellants Amar Yadav @ Amar Kumar, Bijay Yadav, Prabhu Yadav, Bahadur Yadav, Kanhaiya Yadav @ Kanhay Yadav, and Mathura Yadav.

Background of the Case

The case originated from a Protest cum Complaint Case No. 67/2021, where the appellants were accused of offences under Sections 323, 341, 504, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The complainant alleged that on September 3, 2020, the appellants attempted to till his land, leading to a confrontation where the complainant was assaulted and subjected to caste-based derogatory remarks.

Legal Issues Involved

The primary legal issue revolved around the maintainability of an anticipatory bail application after the issuance of a proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The appellants had filed for anticipatory bail, which was rejected, and subsequently, a proclamation was issued against them.

Court’s Decision

The court, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgments in State of Haryana Versus Dharamraj and Prem Shankar Prasad Versus The State of Bihar & Another, held that the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable once a proclamation under Section 82 CrPC is issued, unless there is an interim order of no-coercive measure against the appellant.

Important Observations

Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary emphasized that:

> “Mere filing of anticipatory bail petition cannot be a ground for restraining the investigating agency from proceeding against the accused. Warrants, proclamation, and attachment can be issued against the accused, unless there is an interim order of no-coercive measure against the appellant issued by the Court where the anticipatory bail application is filed.”

The court further clarified:

> “In the absence of any interim order, pendency of an application for anticipatory bail shall not bar the Trial Court in issuing/proceeding with steps for proclamation and in taking steps under Section 83, Cr. P.C., in accordance with law.”

Also Read

The appellants were represented by Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, and Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate. The State was represented by Mr. Achinto Sen, A.P.P., and the informant by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

Law Trend
Law Trend
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles