Non-Compliance With Rule 14 Of NDPS Rules 2022 Regarding Quantitative Test Vitiates Prosecution Case And Renders Detention Illegal: Allahabad High Court Supreme Court Directs Systematic Audit And Institutional Accountability For Safety In Public Spaces Under Article 21 Extra-Judicial Confession Made Before Police Cannot Solely Sustain Preventive Detention: Supreme Court Pre-Trial Incarceration Cannot Masquerade As Punitive Detention When Trial Is Not Imminent: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Radial ‘Hub-And-Spoke’ Valuation Models For Contiguous Lands Are Legally Unsustainable: Supreme Court Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Is A Valid Consequence Upon Failure To Pay Balance Sale Consideration Under IBC Liquidation Process: Supreme Court Res Judicata | Suit For Specific Performance Barred If Relief Was Available In Prior Suit For Permanent Injunction And Not Claimed: Supreme Court RERA | Allottee’s Right To Seek Refund Is Absolute And Unqualified, Not Subject To Promoter’s Completion Of Project: Bombay High Court Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC | Appellate Court Cannot Summarily Reject Addition Of Legal Heirs Based On Unproven Documents Without Reason: Calcutta High Court Order XIV Rule 5 CPC | Trial Court Must Frame Additional Issues Based On Liberty Granted By Supreme Court To Ensure Just Adjudication: Delhi High Court Mere Citation Of Wrong Provision Does Not Invalidate Order If Court Possessed Jurisdiction: Gujarat High Court Injunction Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC Cannot Be Granted Over Large Unidentified Tract Of Land Without Establishing Prima Facie Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 125 CrPC | Mere Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Plea In Divorce Proceedings Does Not Bar Claim For Maintenance: Karnataka High Court Section 311 BNSS | Trial Court Has Discretion To Record Evidence In Narrative Form; Accused Cannot Insist On Question-Answer Format: Kerala High Court Section 482 CrPC | Principle Of Parity Cannot Be Invoked To Quash FIR If Allegations Against Accused Are Distinct And Substantiated: Madhya Pradesh High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Tribunal Cannot Grant 'Right Of Recovery' To Insurer Without Evidence Of Policy Violation: Orissa High Court Mere Inadequacy Of Consideration Or Illiteracy Does Not Vitiate Specific Performance Unless Exploitation Is Proved: Madras High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Converted Into Parallel Forum To Enforce Civil Decrees: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 18 Rule 17 CPC | Reopening Evidence At The Stage Of Arguments Without Compelling Grounds Amounts To Abuse Of Process: Telangana High Court Cannot Circumvent Bail Granted By Supreme Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes PITNDPS Preventive Detention Order

"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