Whether the court can grant interim anticipatory bail to accused if public prosecutor is not prepared to give say on bail application?

 At the outset, the learned APP has submitted that this is the first date when the Application has come up for hearing and he is required to take instructions from the Investigating Officer. He has objected to any order being passed in the Application. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Kachrusingh Santaramsingh Rajput1 wherein the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 held that, “the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State before a particular Court, was not able to say anything in the matter of grant of interim bail for want of instructions or adequate instructions and require some accommodation, to put before the Court. In such an eventuality, ordinarily, the Court shall not leave the Applicant - Accused without extending the protection of the Court to him, may it be temporary”. In the light of this judgment, the Applicant is protected for a limited period i.e. till 21st May, 2019, when the matter shall be placed and the learned APP may in position to take instructions. {Para 2}

3. Till then, the Applicant is protected by interim relief. 

In the High Court of Bombay

(Before R.I. Chagla, J.)

Nazhir A.H. Khan Vs State of Maharashtra 

Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1096 of 2019

Decided on May 8, 2019

Citation: 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 798.

R.I. Chagla, J.:— The Applicant is apprehending arrest in FIR No. I-180 of 2019 registered with Waliv Police Station, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act.

2. At the outset, the learned APP has submitted that this is the first date when the Application has come up for hearing and he is required to take instructions from the Investigating Officer. He has objected to any order being passed in the Application. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Kachrusingh Santaramsingh Rajput1 wherein the learned Single Judge in paragraph 9 held that, “the Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State before a particular Court, was not able to say anything in the matter of grant of interim bail for want of instructions or adequate instructions and require some accommodation, to put before the Court. In such an eventuality, ordinarily, the Court shall not leave the Applicant - Accused without extending the protection of the Court to him, may it be temporary”. In the light of this judgment, the Applicant is protected for a limited period i.e. till 21st May, 2019, when the matter shall be placed and the learned APP may in position to take instructions.

3. Till then, the Applicant is protected by interim relief. Hence I pass the following order:—

i) In the event of arrest of Applicant in FIR No. I-180 of 2019 registered with Waliv Police Station, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar under Section 420, 465, 467, 468 & 471 read with 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of MPID Act, the Applicant shall be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or two local sureties in the like amount;

ii) During the said period, Applicant shall attend Investigating Officer from 12th May, 2019 to 15th May, 2019 between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. and to join the process of investigation.

iii) The Applicant shall not tamper with evidence and/or influence the complainant.

iv) Stand over to 21st May, 2019.

———

1 CRA No. 42 and 43 of 1994 decided on 18.02.1994

Print Page