Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 82, 83, 173(8), 437(3), 438, 439(2), 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 302, 307, 323, 341, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India
Judge/Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Facts
The complainant alleged that the accused, along with others, fired gunshots at his party, killing one Bablu Chaudhary and injuring Shailendra alias Pintu. The accused remained absconding since the incident and never cooperated with the investigation.
Key Legal Provisions
Sections 82, 83, 173(8), 437(3), 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 302, 307, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959
Issues raised
- Whether an absconding accused is entitled to anticipatory bail?
- Whether acquittal of co-accused constitutes a “change in circumstance” justifying grant of anticipatory bail to the absconding accused?
Arguments of the case
The Appellant argued that the accused had been absconding for over six years and was declared a proclaimed offender while the Respondent (Accused) argued that no valid proclamation under Section 82 CrPC was ever issued.
Judgement
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the order granting anticipatory bail. The Court held that an absconder is generally not entitled to anticipatory bail and cannot benefit from the acquittal of co-accused.
Click here to VIEW the full judgement.
