The disagreement in the case of srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar concerns the accused/appellant’s failure to appear in trial court despite being served with a summons, a bailable warrant, a non-bailable warrant, and a proclamation pursuant to section 82 of criminal procedure code and section 83 of criminal procedure code. The court first issued a bailable warrant for the accused’s arrest after they disobeyed the summons order, and then it issued a non-bailable warrant to ensure that the accused appeared in court. But in the end, the court declared the accused to be a proclaimed offender and issued a proclamation when the non-bailable warrant failed to bring the accused to justice.
Criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused against the High Court’s decision to deny the accused pre-arrest/anticipatory bail, citing the non-bailable warrant and proclamation issued against them for disobeying the Trial Court’s valid orders and trying to postpone the proceedings.
srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar Case Facts
- In connection with FIR No. 79 of 2020, which was lodged at the Govindganj Police Station in Bihar, the appellants requested anticipatory bail under Sections 341, 323, 354, 354 (B), 379, 504, 506, and 149 of the IPC as well as Section 3/4 of the Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act, 1999.
- Despite the fact that the appellants were served with both bailable and non-bailable warrants by the Trial Court, they chose not to contest or show up for court. The Trial Court issued warrants for the appellants that were both non-bailable and bailable. They did not, however, choose to oppose or participate in the judicial proceedings. Meanwhile, the appellants in this case filed an application with the Trial Court describing it as a bail-cum-surrender. But they pulled it out of fear of being arrested.
- Later, while their non-bailable warrants were still outstanding, the appellants in this case filed CRLM No. 67668 of 2022 with the High Court, requesting anticipatory bail.
- The trial court declared under Section 82(1) of the CrPC due to the appellants’ non-appearance in spite of the prior order for their appearance and the issue of non-bailable warrants. After then, actions were taken in accordance with section 83 of criminal procedure code.
- The Honorable Patna High Court further denied the appeal.
- After their application for anticipatory bail was denied by the Patna High Court, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. Because the accused had disregarded court orders and stalled the proceedings, the High Court had issued proclamations and non-bailable warrants against them.
srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar Issues
- Can warrants and proclamations be stopped while anticipatory bail applications are pending?
- Does skipping court mean running away from arrest or avoiding capture?
- Is submitting an application for anticipatory bail by itself a sufficient justification for breaking the law and court orders?
- Can the court issue proclamations or initiate proceedings under section 83 of criminal procedure code. in the absence of an interim order in a bail application?
- Does a criminal lose the right to request anticipatory bail if they repeatedly violate court orders and try to stall proceedings?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The appellants’ knowledgeable Senior Counsel, Mr. Basant R., supported their position throughout the appeal by referencing a number of prior court decisions.
- The appellants’ Senior Counsel contends that the application for anticipatory bail should be evaluated on its own merits even in the event of an ongoing non-bailable warrant. On the stated grounds, the application for pre-arrest bail should not be denied. They argued that they were only using their legal right to request deferred prosecution.
Respondent:
- The State’s attorney, Mr. Anshul Narayan, vehemently disagreed with the arguments made by the appellants.
- It is contended that the issuance of a warrant that is not subject to bail and the commencement of legal proceedings under section 82 of criminal procedure code are justiciable. Fairness and justice must be upheld by the legal system in how it treats people, and this can only be done through an open and reasonable procedure.
- A pending request for anticipatory bail does not ensure pre-arrest bail in the absence of temporary protection. Typically, subordinate courts hold off on taking any action until they get directives from the High Court. It could not be maintained even if the application is still pending.
- Anticipatory bail according to section 438 of criminal procedure code is a unique authority that ought to be applied with caution to avoid subjecting a person to harassment or humiliation as a result of a complaint’s personal grudge.
srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar: Observation by the Court
- They did not want to appear before the Trial Court and did not request ordinary bail after the recall of the nonbailable warrants.
- It is a fact that they did not take any action to contest the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.PC. or to appear before the Trial Court in order to avoid the consequences, even after learning about it.
- Given the appellants’ actions and the previously mentioned conditions, we can categorically declare that they lack the right to request pre-arrest bail.
srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar Judgment
- The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the “CrPC”), section 82 of criminal procedure code,’s refusal of bail to a proclaimed offender or absconder, was the subject of dispute. The matter of Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 14 SCC 516, was discussed in court. The ruling was reached subsequent to citing two further cases: Lavesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and State of M.P. v. Pradeep Sharma, (2014) 2 SCC 171.
- The observations made by Justices C.T. Ravi Kumar and Sanjay Kumar state that the argument that an application for anticipatory bail cannot be postponed without an order of interim protection is not admissible. A cursory examination of Section 438 (1), Cr. PC, would indicate that the Court may, in light of the grounds listed therein, dismiss the application immediately or make an interim order granting anticipatory bail.
- According to the court’s decision, in the absence of an interim order, the trial court may issue or carry out procedures for proclamation and take actions under section 83 of criminal procedure code. This is even when an application for anticipatory bail is pending. The petitioner would not be permitted to request anticipatory bail if an arrest warrant or proclamation is issued, the court further noted. In the interest of justice, the court may nonetheless decide to issue pre-arrest bail in certain extraordinary and dire circumstances.
- The Supreme Court rejected the appeal as a result.
srikant upadhyay v the state of bihar: Analysis of the Case
- In one case, the appellant contended that they were not present when the court issued warrants that may be issued for bail. The court rendered a verdict in that regard. They did, however, file bail requests even after a proclamation was issued in accordance with Section 82 of the CrPC.
- The other co-accused appeared before the court and was granted ordinary bail after bailable warrants were issued, the court observed. In contrast, the appellants disobeyed the law’s authority by filing applications while purposefully evading arrest.
- The Court cited CrPC Section 70(2), which stipulates that all warrants must be valid until they are revoked by the Court or executed. The Court made it clear that neither the cancellation nor the execution of the bailable or non-bailable warrants occurred in this instance.
- It is important to remember that failure to appear in accordance with the proclamation according to section 82 of the criminal procedure code (CrPC) may result in additional judicial procedures.
- This is because of the rules outlined in Sections 174 and 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 19, 20, and 21 of the IPC, which make reference to “Judge,” “Court of Justice,” and “Public Servant.” As a result, compliance with these rules is essential to prevent legal repercussions.
- The Trial Court may proceed with proclamation proceedings or actions under section 83 of the criminal procedure code in the absence of an interim order, even while an application for anticipatory bail is pending. This is compliant with the legislation.
The court stressed that granting anticipatory bail should only be done very seldom and carefully. It emphasized how crucial it is for those who are accused to adhere to the law’s procedures and subject to its authority, even when they are asserting their legal rights. The court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary authority that ought to be exercised carefully. It was brought to light that despite warrants and proclamations having been issued, the appellants had continuously disregarded court orders and neglected to show up for their trial court appearances. The appellants’ behaviour and attempts to stall the proceedings prompted the court to determine that they were not eligible for pre-arrest bail.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
