Madhya Pradesh High Court: No Bar on Maintainability of Anticipatory Bail for an Absconding Accused

Must Read

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work,...

Follow us

In the case of Balveer Singh Bundela v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the prosecutrix challenged the maintainability of anticipatory bail. The court stated the difference between ‘maintainability’ and ‘entitlement’.

Facts of the case

The complainant has accused the 41- year old of rape in the pretext of marriage. He married the complainant on 16.11.2019 without giving divorce to his first wife. He has allegedly committed rape on 26/27.10.2019 and 11.12.2019. The investigating agency issued an arrest warrant under section 376, 386 and 506 of IPC.

To no avail, the Superintendent of Police declared the accused as ‘absconder’ with a cash reward of Rs. 5000 for the information. Thus, the counsel has filed the first application for anticipatory bail. The Gwalior bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court took up the matter for hearing. 

Arguments by the Applicant’s Counsel

The counsel contended the matter under Section 438 of CrPC. On 28.01.2020, the parties reached a compromise with the transfer of a certain sum in the past. But, the Court rejected compromise as the allegation was under Section 376 of IPC. Thus, the complainant has converted incompatibility in a relationship into a rape offence.

Further, physical intimacy in wedlock must not result in rape post severance. He characterises the applicant as a reputed citizen of the locality. Further, he has a remote chance of absconding. Presumably, confinement brings social disrepute and personal inconvenience. Thus, the counsel undertook cooperation in the investigation. As a result, they guaranteed no source of harassment.

Additionally, the counsel responded on the invocation of Section 82 of CrPC. It provides for declaring a person as an ‘absconder’. He contended that mere declaration of reward on arrest does not comply to Section 82 of CrPC. The liberty to declare award has become a device to deny an applicant a chance of anticipatory bail. 

It also presents the issue of whether Section 438 of IPC is an essential element of Article 21. The exclusion may become an unreasonable restriction. It attracts constitutional vulnerability and infringes the fundamental right. 

Arguments by the Respondent’s Counsel

The respondents have relied on the provisions of section 82 and 83 of CrPC. The Apex Court in Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 73, debarred absconders under Section 82 of CrPC to get anticipatory bail. 

The respondents object the bail as the investigating agency declared reward on the arrest. The reward declaration evidence that the accused did not cooperate in the investigation. So, the proclamation of ‘offender’ makes it void to seek relief under anticipatory bail.

Court’s Observation

The Court distinguished between ‘maintainability’ and ‘entitlement’. It analysed the judgement in Lavesh case (supra). It only suggests that the absconder loses ‘entitlement’ to bail. The Court will analyse the plea for anticipatory bail of an absconder as per the merits of dismissal. 

Moreover, it stated that Section 82, 83 of CrPC are interim and subject to proceedings as per Section 84, 86 of CrPC. Thus, the court cannot curtail the right to personal liberty via anticipatory bail. 

The Court re-iterated the judgement in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. the State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632. The court held that anticipatory bail is maintainable even after filing the charge sheet. But, this condition is applicable only until the person is not arrested. 

It observed that the declaration of reward was a mere bounty on arrest of the applicant. The police did not start any process under Section 82 of CrPC. But, it as an important factor of consideration while rejecting the anticipatory bail.

The Court noted the maturity of the parties as they had tried to settle the matter under Section 482. This implies that they waited for consequences while living together. The Court placed reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 4010. In this case, it stated that physical intimacy in the guise of marriage is not an offence of rape.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court stated, “the application deserves dismissal on merits if he is declared as absconder under Section 82 of CrPC, but the application is certainty maintainable”. Thus, there must be no restriction on the admissibility of the application. And the Court will determine entitlements on further consideration.

Court’s Decision

The single-judge bench comprised of Justice Anand Pathak pronounced the judgement. The Court granted the anticipatory bail on considering the facts and precedents. Thus, the applicant will be released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 to the satisfaction of investigating officer. The applicant must furnish bond within one and a half month as the situation moves out of lockdown.


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Delhi HC: Mens Rea Essential Before Passing an Order U/S 14b of EPF Act

  In the matter of M/s Durable Doors and Windows v APFC, Gurugram, the bench allowed the Petitioner's appeal holding that mens rea is an...

Delhi HC: Language of Statement and Testimony of Complainant Need Not Be Identical

A single-judge bench of J. Vibhu Bakhru of the Delhi High Court upheld the accused's conviction in Kailash @ Balli v State. The bench...

COVID Results Shall Be Conveyed To the Person Within 24 Hours: Delhi High Court

The order has come in a writ petition moved by Rakesh Malhotra. The Petitioner herein seeks to ramp up testing facilities in Delhi.   Facts of...

Delhi High Court Sets Aside the Order of the Trial Court in the Chief Secretary Assault Case

In the case of Mr. Arvind Kejriwal & Anr. V. State NCT of Delhi, Mr.Justice Suresh Kumar Kait has set aside the 24.07.2019 Order...

Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vintage Moments’ Alcohol Sale in Case of Trademark Infringement

The manufacturers of the Alcohol Brand Magic Moments had filed a suit. The Delhi High Court has passed an order restraining the manufacturing, marketing,...

NGT Red-Flags Kaleshwaram Project: Green Clearance Violated the Law, Halt Work

Excerpt The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, dated 20th October 2020, directed the Telangana government to stop all work, except the drinking water component...

There Can Be No Leniency Shown To Appellant Who Pleaded To Reduce Sentence: Delhi High Court

Facts On 25.2.2016 the victim’s sister who was 13 years old was present with her sister who was 2 years old (victim) at their home....

Violation of Executive Instructions Cannot Be Sole Ground to Invalidate Transfer Orders: Tripura High Court

In Dr Bithika Choudhury vs the State of Tripura & Ors., a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S.G. Chattopadhyay...

Case Regarding Anticipatory Bail, Applicant May Be Released Imposing Suitable Conditions: Gujarat High Court

A Single-Judge Bench of Gujarat High Court consisting of Honourable Dr Justice A.P. Thakur had been hearing submissions of the Applicant to release him...

Proof of Infliction of Fatal Injury Not Mandatory for Conviction Under Section 307, IPC: Tripura High Court

In the case of Mamin Miah vs the State of Tripura, a Division Bench consisting of Hon’ble Justice S. Talapatra and Hon’ble Justice S....

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -