In Gulshan Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu passed a 6-page long order dated November 6, 2026, wherein, it concluded:"5. It is not in dispute that the appellant has joined investigation in terms of the earlier order of this Court. 6. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant’s detention for custodial interrogation is not necessary and that he may be admitted to an order for grant of bail in anticipation of arrest. 7. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order impugned in this appeal. 8. It is directed that in the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail on terms and conditions to be imposed by the trial court." The appellant no. 2 is Kundan Kumar.
Earlier, in Gulshan Kumar & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh of Patna High Court has passed a 2-page long order dated March 31, 2026, wherein, he concluded: "6. Considering the nature of accusation and gravity of of offence, materials available on record and other circumstances of the case, prayer for pre-arrest bail of the petitioners is rejected." The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 303(2), 318(2),318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2) Β.N.S. and Section 66,66(B),66(D) of I.T. Act. As per F.I.R. informant alleged that a cyber fraud racket was being operated to defraud people under the guise of providing loans. Following surveillance and raids, the accused were arrested and incriminating mobile phones, SIM cards, and digital evidence were recovered.
The counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were innocent and were falsely implicated in this case . The name of these petitioners transpired in this case in the confessional statement of other co-accused person namely, Ranjit Kumar who were apprehended on the spot. Except confessional statement, there is no other material on record to show the complicity of these petitioners in the alleged occurrence. The petitioner had got no concern with the alleged occurrence. They have clean antecedent. The counsel for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there was specific allegation against the petitioners that these petitioners are accused of being involved in cyber fraud and also providing SIM cards, customer details and account details for soliciting money.
Justice Singh had rejected the appellant’s prayer for bail in anticipation of arrest. Supreme Court has set aside his order.
Advocate Dr. Gopal Krishna observed:"Anticipatory bail is granted to the individual or individuals who apprehend arrest. It can only be granted by the Session court or the High court. According to Section 482 of the BNSS (Section 438 of CrPC), if any person believes that he may be arrested for any non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High court or the Session court to direct for his release on bail on event of his arrest, subjected to the conditions as imposed by the respective court while considering the facts of the case. Under this Section the respective courts have discretionary powers while granting bail to the person apprehending arrest. In N.S. Sahni vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 3810, the Supreme Court has held that the court has the discretionary powers in the matter of anticipatory bail and it is not an essential part of right to life enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. In Pratibha Manchanda vs. The State of Haryana, (2023) 8 SCC 181, it has held that the High Court and the Court of Session while dealing with applications for anticipatory bail, should consider the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and its impact on the society."
No comments:
Post a Comment