Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.438 – Anticipatory bail – Appellant-complainant was awarded contract for constructing road – Four accused were engaged by appellant company as its employees and were assigned responsibility of identifying farmers on the basis of list provided by the governmental authorities and to disburse compensation to them after verifying authenticity of the claim – Appellant filed complaint against the four accused alleging that the accused were involved in fraud of around Rs.5.08 crores by fabricating documents pertaining to the occupants of lands and making nominal payments to villagers – Trial court ordered investigation under s.156(3) of the Code – FIR was registered – All four accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by High Court – Appeal by complainant – Held: Magistrate’s order under s.156(3) was not under challenge before the High Court and had attained finality – High Court was in error in raising a doubt about the correctness of the order under s.156(3) passed by the Magistrate in the course of considering the complaint – Secondly, the position in law as set out in the order of High Court did not accord with the principles consistently enunciated in the context of Chapter XV of the CrPC – High Court, in granting anticipatory bail lost sight of the nature and gravity of the alleged offence – There were serious allegations against the accused persons of a fraudulent misappropriation of amounts intended to be paid to the farmers affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the complainant – The FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation of funds – Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, no case for anticipatory bail was made out. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: The High Court, in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 in the first two appeals and following that order in disposing of the challenge to the order of the Sessions Judge in the companion appeals, has evidently lost sight of the nature and gravity of the alleged offence.There are serious allegations against the respondent – accused of a fraudulent misappropriation of amounts intended to be paid by the company to the farmers affected by the work of road widening being undertaken by the complainant. The FIR sets out details of the alleged acts of fraud and misappropriation of funds. Having regard to the seriousness of the allegations no case for anticipatory bail was made out. The High Court has erred both in law and in its evaluation of the facts. [Paras 22, 23][238-E-F; 239-D-F]
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. (2001) 2 SCC 628:[2001] 1 SCR 257; Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641; Tilak Nagar Industries Limited v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 15 SCC 571; Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 6 SCC 384:[2012] 13 SCR 901; Sushila Aggarwal v. State NCT of 15 Delhi (2020) 5 SCC 1:[2020] 2 SCR 1; Myakala Dharmarajam v. The State of Telangana (2020) 2 SCC
743 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.