Triple Riding On Motorcycle Not Automatic Proof Of Contributory Negligence; High Court Can Enhance Award Even Without Cross-Appeal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Statutory Power To Lay Electricity Lines Prevails Over Private Land Claims; Landowners Entitled To Compensation, Not Obstruction: Bombay High Court Beer & Whisky Are Allied/Cognate Goods; Use Of Identical Mark For Spirits Infringes 'Godfather' Beer Trademark: Delhi High Court Minimum Percentile Fixed By Indian Nursing Council For B.Sc. Nursing Admissions Must Be Strictly Adhered To; Cannot Be Diluted Without Approval: Calcutta High Court Bride Not Expected To Keep All Gold In Personal Custody In Matrimonial Home; Entrustment To Husband Presumed: Kerala High Court Default Imprisonment Not Additional Punishment But Coercive Measure To Secure Fine; Cannot Become 'De Facto' Debtors' Prison: Karnataka High Court Mahant Is Only A Custodian Of Deity’s Property, Assets Gifted For Temple Maintenance Belong To Public Trust: Gujarat High Court Pendency Of Criminal Antecedents Alone Not A Ground To Deny Bail: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail In Abduction Case After 3-Year Delay In FIR Beer Falls Under ‘IMFL’ Category; No Obligation To Collect TCS On Sales Prior To June 2003: Telangana High Court Dismissal From Service For Negligence Without Proved Misappropriation Is Disproportionate: Orissa High Court Merit In A Case Does Not Justify Disregarding Statutory Delay: NCDRC Upholds Dismissal Of Star Health's Appeal Filed With 442-Day Delay Limitation Period Under Section 34(3) Arbitration Act Commences Only From Receipt Of Signed Copy Of Award: Madhya Pradesh High Court Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court Arrest Warrants Against Directors Under Section 72 CP Act Should Be Last Resort; Proper Procedure Must Be Followed: NCDRC

"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