Prem Chand v. State Of Haryana

ASHISH 2023.08.23 08:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this judgment/order

4.

Keeping in view the aforesaid role assigned to petitioner, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for granting pre-arrest bail. As per settled law petitioner is required to make out a case for invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, Apex Court has held that :- "..That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail.

The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail...."

(emphasis supplied) 5.

Likewise while reiterating the law laid down in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia's case (supra), Apex Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, 2020 (5) SCC 1 has held that :- "(4) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it."

CRM-M No.39978 of 2023 -46.

The nature and the seriousness of allegations levelled against the petitioner and his conduct are the relevant factors for the adjudication of the present petition.

7.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this does not appear to be a fit case to grant discretionary relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. 8.

Needless to say, nothing recorded hereinabove should be construed as expression on merits of the case. 9.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.