Court’s Decision
The Orissa High Court dismissed a third anticipatory bail plea filed by the petitioners in a case involving serious offences including attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that despite the filing of the chargesheet, the nature of allegations did not warrant grant of anticipatory bail. However, in exercise of discretion, the Court permitted the petitioners to surrender before the learned Magistrate within one month and directed expeditious consideration of their regular bail application both by the Magistrate and, if rejected, by the higher forum on the same day.
Facts
The petitioners were accused in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 294, 452, 448, 354, 427, 506, 149, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case arose from Konark Police Station and was pending as G.R. Case No. 202 of 2020 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Konark. This was the petitioners’ third attempt before the High Court for pre-arrest bail. Their first application (ABLAPL No. 5394 of 2020) was dismissed as not pressed on 16 March 2022. Their second application (ABLAPL No. 2446 of 2025) was rejected on 13 March 2025. In this third attempt, they contended that custodial interrogation was not necessary as the chargesheet had already been filed.
Issues
- Whether the filing of a chargesheet is a sufficient ground to grant anticipatory bail in a case involving grave offences under the Indian Penal Code, particularly Section 307.
- Whether repeated anticipatory bail applications are maintainable in the absence of any substantial change in circumstances.
- Whether procedural directions for expeditious disposal of regular bail applications can be issued despite the rejection of anticipatory bail.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners submitted that since the chargesheet had already been filed in the matter, there was no further need for custodial interrogation. They emphasized that they were willing to cooperate with the investigation and argued that the gravity of the offence had diminished after the filing of the final report. It was also contended that their earlier bail applications were not rejected on merits but were either dismissed as not pressed or without proper consideration.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State opposed the bail application, citing the serious nature of allegations, including those under Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder), and the presence of multiple other sections involving house trespass, hurt, and criminal intimidation. It was argued that this being the third attempt for pre-arrest bail, no change in circumstance was demonstrated by the petitioners. The State maintained that such relief should not be granted casually when serious charges were pending.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the jurisprudence on anticipatory bail, particularly in the context of grave offences like attempt to murder. While acknowledging that filing of a chargesheet can sometimes reduce the risk of tampering with evidence or absconding, the Court reiterated that the nature and gravity of the offence remain paramount considerations. The Court also exercised caution against entertaining repeated anticipatory bail applications, especially when no material change in circumstances is shown.
Precedent Analysis
Though not expressly cited, the Court’s approach aligns with key precedents:
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565, which laid down broad principles for grant of anticipatory bail, including consideration of seriousness of allegations.
- State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187, where the Supreme Court held that custodial interrogation may still be necessary even after the filing of a chargesheet depending on the case facts.
- The repeated filing of bail pleas without material change was also addressed in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528, which held that successive bail applications must be based on new circumstances.
The Court in this case applied the principle that the gravity of allegations and absence of new grounds justified the denial of anticipatory bail.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court noted that this was the third attempt by the petitioners to seek pre-arrest bail and that their earlier pleas had either been dismissed or rejected. It observed:
“Taking into account the nature of allegations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the application.”
Nonetheless, acknowledging that the chargesheet had been filed and to balance procedural fairness, the Court directed that the petitioners may surrender before the concerned Magistrate within one month. It further directed that if the bail plea is rejected, the petitioners may immediately move the higher forum, and both courts were instructed to dispose of the application on the same day. The Magistrate was directed to transmit records to the higher forum without delay.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court dismissed the third anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners in a case involving offences including attempt to murder. The Court, however, permitted the petitioners to surrender and directed expedited consideration of their regular bail plea, while reiterating the importance of the nature of allegations in denying anticipatory bail.
Implications
This judgment reinforces that filing of a chargesheet does not dilute the seriousness of grave offences such as attempt to murder for the purpose of anticipatory bail. It also underscores that repeated anticipatory bail pleas without change in circumstances will not be entertained. The procedural direction to ensure same-day consideration of regular bail pleas after surrender reflects the Court’s effort to balance liberty with legal process.
FAQs
1. Can anticipatory bail be granted once the chargesheet is filed?
Not necessarily. Filing of a chargesheet does not automatically entitle an accused to anticipatory bail, especially in grave offences like attempt to murder.
2. Is there any restriction on filing multiple anticipatory bail applications?
Yes. Successive anticipatory bail applications must be based on substantial change in circumstances; otherwise, they are not maintainable.
3. What happens if anticipatory bail is denied by the High Court?
The accused can surrender before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail. If rejected, they can approach the higher forum, which is expected to consider the bail plea promptly.
