Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

"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