Grant 3-day relief after rejection of anticipatory bail: HC

NAGPUR: In a landmark judgment which will come as a relief to those seeking anticipatory bail from sessions court under section 438 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that mandates the accused’s physical presence, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay high court said that at least three days of interim relief shall be granted if such a bail is rejected.
Justice Manish Pitale’s August 21 judgment is set to have far-reaching effects on the law relating to anticipatory bail matters and the rights of the prosecution as well as the accused.
In his order, Justice Pitale wrote, “If the sessions court rejects the application for anticipatory bail upon final hearing and the accused is present before the court as per section 438(4) of the CrPC (Maharashtra Amendment), the court shall extend the interim protection of the accused for at least three working days, on the same conditions on which interim protection was granted during pendency of the application, or on such further conditions as the sessions court may deem fit.” The order also made it clear that such an interim relief period must not exceed seven days.
However, the accused shall have to abide by all conditions set by the sessions court while granting interim protection, and if any violation is noticed then “such interim protection shall cease to operate instantaneously”.
Senior advocate Avinash Gupta, who along with advocate Aakash Gupta appeared for the applicant Dr Sameer Paltewar, said, “Many times the prosecution mandates physical presence of the applicant in court even for anticipatory bail using section 438(4). However, no concrete reason is ever given as to why the applicant has to remain present for such a hearing. Naturally the applicant fears that if bail is rejected, s/he falls into the mouse trap and may get arrested within court premises.”
Justice Pitale’s judgment also addresses the ‘physical presence’ question. The order says the prosecutor “shall state cogent reasons while seeking the obligatory presence of the accused before the sessions court at the time of final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail. The sessions court shall consider such an application and pass a reasoned order as to why the presence of the accused is necessary at the time of final hearing.”
Advocates Shyam Dewani and Sahil Dewani, who appeared for the intervenor, said, “This judgment is truly pathbreaking because it brings clarity to an important legal issue.” Advocate SA Ashirgade appeared for the prosecution.