AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 380 wordsS.S. Sudhalkar, J.
This is an application for anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner apprehends that he will be arrested by virtue of summons issued in complaint case No. 147 dated 25.7.1994 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate I Class, Gurdaspur and, therefore, requests that this application for anticipatory bail be granted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also states that bailable warrants have been issued against the petitioner as per order annexure P/3.
The petitioner wants anticipatory bail in connection with a bailable warrant issued in a criminal case against him. The question, therefore is whether the petitioner can in such a case get the benefit of section 438 Cr.P.C. Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
"When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence ..... and that the court may if it thinks fit direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail."
This means that the anticipatory bail can be granted in case the petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with a nonbailable offence. However, when there is a specific case where bailable warrants are issued against the petitioner, he will obviously be released on bail by the police if he furnishes bail upon his arrest. Therefore, granting of anticipatory bail in such a condition would be redundant. Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not contemplate a case where only bailable warrants are issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to me the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632. In that case the Supreme Court has held that the applicant must show that he has reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence. Relying on this judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the offences involved in the case are nonbailable and, therefore, the provisions of section 438 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the present case, where only bailable warrants are issued, the provisions of section 438 of the Cr.P.C. will not be applicable for the reasons stated earlier.
Because of the above reasons, this petition is dismissed.