The LII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-53), dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Anil Kumar (Accused No. 2) in connection with the split-up case S.C. No. 157/2022, which originated from Crime No. 254/2012 of the Jayanagar Police Station.
The order, pronounced on August 22, 2023, by Sri. B.G. Pramoda, ruled that the petition filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. (Anticipatory Bail) was not maintainable because the petitioner had already been arrested and released on regular bail in the original case.
Case Background: Gang Robbery and Absconding
The petitioner, Anil Kumar, was an accused in a case registered for offences punishable under Section 399 (Making preparation to commit dacoity) and Section 402 (Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The court noted the following procedural history:
- Initial Arrest and Bail: The petitioner was initially arrested in Crime No. 254/2012 and subsequently obtained regular bail through Crl. Misc. No. 3076/2012.
- Committal and Regular Bail: After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, S.C. No. 1236/2012 was registered. The petitioner appeared after being served summons and obtained regular bail again on September 21, 2012 (though the order mentions January 29, 2012, as a later date of obtaining bail).
- Absconding and Split-up Case: The petitioner subsequently failed to appear before the court, leading to the court ordering a split-up case against him.
- Current Status: The split-up charge sheet resulted in S.C. No. 157/2022 being registered, and a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued against the petitioner.
Petitioner’s Contention for Anticipatory Bail
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the petitioner failed to appear due to “collecting wrong dates” and now had a reasonable apprehension of arrest by the police, who were allegedly making hectic efforts to detain him based on the NBW in S.C. No. 157/2022. The petitioner asserted his readiness to abide by any conditions and furnish surety.
Judicial Analysis of Maintainability
The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail plea, contending that the offences were serious, the petitioner had absconded after obtaining bail, and releasing him now would allow him to delay the trial, abscond again, or tamper with witnesses.
The court’s decision was founded on a strict interpretation of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.:
- Anticipatory bail is intended to be granted only at the initial stage of a crime and before the arrest of the accused in view of the apprehension of arrest.
- The power under Section 438 cannot be exercised if the accused is already arrested during the investigation of the case.
Since the petitioner was already arrested and released on regular bail in the original Crime No. 254/2012, his current status is not that of a person fearing a first-time arrest, but rather an absconding accused in a pending trial (S.C. No. 157/2022) facing an execution of a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW).
The judge explicitly stated:
“When the petitioner is already arrested and when he has obtained the regular bail from this court, the petitioner is not entitle for anticipatory bail U/s 438 of Cr.P.C.”
The court clarified that the only option available to the petitioner is to surrender before the concerned court where S.C. No. 157/2022 is pending and file an application praying to recall the Non-Bailable Warrant issued against him.
Conclusion
Finding the petition non-maintainable under the statutory framework of Section 438 Cr.P.C., the court answered Point No. 1 (Whether the petitioner has made out grounds for granting anticipatory bail) in the Negative.
The final order therefore was:
The petition filed by the petitioner u/s.438 of Cr.P.C., is hereby dismissed.
The ruling serves as a clear jurisdictional boundary, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest remedy and cannot be used to circumvent the consequences of failing to appear in an ongoing trial where a regular warrant has been issued.