The court should not come to the rescue of an accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and is on the run, the Supreme Court has said while denying anticipatory bail to a person in an alleged riot case.
The court said that the petitioner and other co-accused were booked under various sections of the Indian Penal Code 307 (attempt to murder) and 147 (punishment for rioting), for the incident that took place in March 2017.
While hearing the petition of the accused against the order of the Allahabad High Court, which in June this year rejected the demand for anticipatory bail, the top court said that he is on the run and under section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Proclamation proceedings have also been initiated. against him.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said that the High Court had in December 2019 directed that if the petitioner surrenders before the court within 30 days and applies for bail, his prayer for bail. will be considered and no coercive step can be taken. He has been prosecuted for a period of 30 days in this case.
It said that despite the December 2019 order of the High Court, which had dismissed a petition seeking quashing of the charge sheet, the petitioner did not surrender and applied for regular bail and thereafter non-bailable charges against him. Warrant was also issued.
The bench said, “The court will not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and is absconding and against whom not only a non-bailable warrant has been issued but also a proclamation under section 82 of CrPC.” has also been issued.” In its 7 October order.
The apex court said the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that initially he was not named as an accused in the FIR, which has been observed by the trial court, which has observed that even in the first FIR, a person was shown as an unidentified person. had gone.
“Thus, from the aforesaid it is found that a prima facie case has been found against the petitioner for the above offenses and even the charge sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found absconding,” the bench observed. Therefore, it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
During the arguments before the court, the counsel representing the petitioner had submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the case and since the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has already been filed, it is necessary to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. was a suitable case.
The High Court, while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the accused, said that he was not cooperating in the trial court.
(Except for the title, this story has not been edited by NB staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)