Can’t overlook misconduct of accused seeking bail: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, January 27

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that the misconduct of an accused cannot be overlooked when considering a petition for anticipatory bail. Emphasising the principle that a court cannot be expected to turn a blind eye to the actions of the accused, the ruling establishes a firm stance on accountability in the pursuit of anticipatory bail.

“A court cannot be expected to turn a Nelson’s eye to the misconduct of an accused while dealing with a petition for the grant of anticipatory bail…. The conduct of an accused is an essential factor required to be considered by a court while adjudicating upon a plea for the grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail. An accused cannot seek the shelter of provisions of Sections 41 and 41-A of the CrPC dehors his conduct,” Justice Sumeet Goel asserted.

Sections 41 and 41A outline the circumstances in which the police can arrest someone without a warrant and when they should issue a notice instead.

Justice Goel asserted that a person apprehending arrest for offenses punishable by a maximum jail term of seven years could seek pre-arrest/anticipatory bail on the ground of apprehension of violation of Sections 41 and 41-A by the police and cannons of law enunciated by the SC.

Justice Goel added that the conduct of an accused had to be ascertained at all stages, including his demeanor before filing the anticipatory bail plea and during the period of interim protection ordered by a court. His conduct after a favorable decision would again be the subject matter of an anticipatory bail cancellation plea if the situation arose.

Justice Goel also made it clear that the court was required to see whether the accused was making himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer as and when required while considering his conduct. It was also required to be seen whether the accused was, directly or indirectly, making inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to the courts/investigating officer.

The courts were also required to see whether the accused had made any attempt to leave the country without the requisite permission from the court concerned or whether he was involved in the commission of any other offense during the FIR’s pendency.

Justice Goel was hearing an anticipatory bail plea by a husband in an FIR registered on January 24, 2022, following a matrimonial discord. Dismissing the plea, the Bench asserted the accused indulged in misconduct by deliberately misusing interim anticipatory bail. His actions demonstrated scant respect for the law and the process of justice. He initially joined the probe in terms of interim protection but chose to deliberately misuse it and make censurable attempts to intimidate the complainant and her family.”