A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case addressed whether the pendency of an anticipatory bail application can bar the trial court from proceeding with actions under Section 82 and subsequent Section 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). The Supreme Court held that pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not preclude the trial court from issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. or initiating steps under Section 83 Cr.P.C., in the absence of an interim order. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary relief, not to be granted casually, particularly when the accused persistently evades the law and fails to comply with court orders.

Keywords:

Anticipatory bail, Pre-arrest bail, Proclamation under Section 82, Non-bailable warrants, Section 438 Cr.P.C.

B) CASE DETAILS

• i) Judgement Cause Title: Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
• ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1552 of 2024
• iii) Judgement Date: 14 March 2024
• iv) Court: Supreme Court of India
• v) Quorum: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar
• vi) Author: Justice C.T. Ravikumar
• vii) Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 421
• viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Sections 438, 82, 83, Cr.P.C.
  • Sections 341, 323, 354, 354B, 379, 504, 506, 149 IPC
  • Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.
• ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None
• x) Case Related to: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from the persistent disobedience of appellants to comply with the summons and warrants issued by the trial court. The appellants filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., which remained pending. Meanwhile, the trial court issued non-bailable warrants followed by a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C., eventually invoking Section 83 Cr.P.C. The appellants contended that the pendency of their anticipatory bail application rendered the proclamation proceedings unsustainable. The Supreme Court examined the procedural safeguards and legal boundaries of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the interplay of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants were implicated under various IPC provisions and the Daain Act based on an FIR alleging serious accusations, including public humiliation and violence.
2. Despite the trial court issuing summons and bailable warrants, the appellants failed to appear.
3. Following the issuance of non-bailable warrants, the appellants sought anticipatory bail, which was dismissed.
4. The trial court proceeded to issue a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. due to non-compliance and later invoked Section 83 Cr.P.C. to attach their properties.
5. The High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application, observing the appellants’ deliberate defiance of legal process.
6. The Supreme Court was approached, raising key legal questions about the validity and procedural propriety of the actions under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the pendency of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. bars the trial court from proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.
2. Whether filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate constitutes “appearance” before the court under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
3. Whether appellants, consistently defying court orders, are entitled to anticipatory bail.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Application of Section 82 During Pendency of Bail: The appellants argued that proclamation proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. were premature while their anticipatory bail application was pending.
2. No Absconding Intent: The appellants contended they were not absconding but merely exercising their legal rights to seek anticipatory bail.
3. Misuse of Legal Procedure: They asserted that initiating Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings undermined their legal recourse to anticipatory bail.
4. Merits of Bail Application Ignored: They alleged procedural impropriety in dismissing their anticipatory bail application without considering its merits.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. No Bar on Section 82 Proceedings: The respondents maintained that pendency of anticipatory bail did not preclude the trial court from taking lawful steps under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
2. Repeated Defiance: The appellants’ consistent non-compliance justified the invocation of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and subsequent Section 83 Cr.P.C. for property attachment.
3. Absconding Behavior Evident: Non-appearance despite summons and warrants demonstrated deliberate evasion of legal obligations.
4. Exceptional Nature of Anticipatory Bail: The respondents emphasized that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, not to be granted lightly.

H) JUDGEMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Legal Framework for Proclamation: The Court held that Section 82 Cr.P.C. proceedings are valid if an accused fails to comply with a court’s summons or warrants.
2. Provisional Nature of Anticipatory Bail: The Court clarified that filing an anticipatory bail application does not automatically confer interim protection.
3. Absconding Defined: The Court reiterated that deliberate evasion of court orders constitutes absconding under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
4. Conduct Influences Bail: Persistent defiance of lawful orders disentitles applicants from anticipatory bail.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that courts must exercise caution when granting anticipatory bail, ensuring it is not misused to frustrate the legal process.

c. Guidelines

1. Filing anticipatory bail does not bar proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
2. Courts may adjourn anticipatory bail applications without granting interim protection.
3. Applicants evading legal obligations cannot claim anticipatory bail as a matter of right.

I) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), [(2012) 8 SCC 730]
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, [(2014) 2 SCC 171]
3. Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr., [(2022) 14 SCC 516]
4. Savitaben Govindbhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, [2004 SCC OnLine Guj 345]
5. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan & Anr., [2010 (1) SCC 679]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Sections 82, 83, and 438 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Sections 341, 323, 354, and 504 IPC
3. Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999