Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

"Anticipatory Bail Not a Right for Proclaimed Offenders," Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court's Bail Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has overturned the anticipatory bail granted to Dharamraj by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The apex court emphasized that "Anticipatory bail is not a right for proclaimed offenders," setting a precedent for future cases involving individuals declared as proclaimed offenders.

The State of Haryana had appealed against the anticipatory bail granted to Dharamraj, who was accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court found that the High Court's grant of anticipatory bail was "improper," particularly given that Dharamraj had been declared a proclaimed offender.

The bench, comprising of Justices AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH and S.V.N. BHATTI, scrutinized the High Court's reasoning and found it lacking. The apex court stated, "The High Court placed reliance on Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar to the effect that where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, there is to be no automatic arrest. However, Section 364, IPC carries a term of imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment of ten years and fine. We are a bit perplexed as to how, despite the addition of Section 364, IPC, the High Court took the view that Arnesh Kumar would aid the respondent in his quest for pre-arrest bail."

The Supreme Court also cited various precedents, including Lavesh v State (NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh v Pradeep Sharma, to emphasize that a proclaimed offender is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail. "The respondent, without first successfully assailing the order declaring him as a proclaimed offender, could not have proceeded to seek anticipatory bail," the court observed.

Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed Dharamraj to surrender before the concerned court within four weeks. He may then seek regular bail, which will be considered on its own merits.

Date of Decision: August 29, 2023

STATE OF HARYANA  vs DHARAMRAJ

Latest Legal News