The court should not come to the rescue of an accused who is not cooperating with the investigating agency and is on the run, the Supreme Court has said while refusing to grant anticipatory bail to a man in an alleged rioting case.
The court noted that the charge sheet was already filed in November 2018 against the petitioner and other co-accused in connection with the case filed in Ballia district of Uttar Pradesh under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 307 (attempt to murder) and 147 (punishment for rioting), for the incident that had happened in March 2017.
Hearing the accused’s plea against the Allahabad High Court order which in June this year rejected his application seeking anticipatory bail, the top court said he has been continuously absconding and proclamation proceedings under section 82 of the Code of Criminal procedure (CrPC) has also been initiated against him.
A bench of Justices MR Shah and AS Bopanna said the high court had in December 2019 directed that in case the petitioner appears and surrenders before the court within 30 days and applies for bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and no coercive steps can be taken against him in the case for a period of 30 days.
It said that despite the December 2019 order of the high court, which had dismissed an application seeking quashing of the charge sheet, the petitioner did not surrender and apply for regular bail and thereafter, non-bailable warrant was also issued against him.
“The court shall not come to the rescue or help the accused who is not cooperating the investigating agency and absconding and against whom not only non-bailable warrant has been issued but also the proclamation under section 82 CrPC has been issued,” the bench said in its October 7 order.
The top court said that submission advanced by the petitioner’s counsel that initially he was not named as accused in the FIR has been dealt with by the trial court which has observed that even in the first FIR, one person was shown as unknown.
“Thus, from the aforesaid it is found that there is a prima facie case found against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and even the charge-sheet has been filed and the petitioner is found to be absconding,” the bench said, adding, “Therefore, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.”
During the arguments before the court, the counsel representing the petitioner had said that he has been falsely implicated in the case and since investigation was complete and charge sheet was already filed, it was a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.
The high court had rejected the anticipatory bail application of the accused while noting that he was not cooperating in the trial court.