LI Network
Published on: January 24, 2024 at 15:15 IST
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has underscored the significance of an accused’s conduct in determining the eligibility for pre-arrest bail, emphasizing that it is a crucial factor for the court to consider.
Justice Sumeet Goel’s bench stated, “The conduct of an accused is an essential factor required to be considered by a Court while adjudicating upon a plea made by such an accused for grant of pre-arrest/anticipatory bail. An accused cannot seek shelter of provisions of Sections 41/41-A of Cr.P.C. dehors his conduct.”
The Court emphasized that an accused’s conduct should be evaluated at all stages, including the period before filing the anticipatory bail plea and during any interim protection granted by the court.
While acknowledging that there is no fixed formula for assessing an accused’s conduct, the court provided specific illustrations, including:
(a) Whether the accused made himself available for interrogation by the investigating officer when required.
(b) Whether the accused, directly or indirectly, induced/threatened/promised any person acquainted with the case to dissuade them from disclosing facts.
(c) Whether the accused attempted to leave India without proper permission from the court.
(d) Whether the accused committed any other offense during the pendency of the FIR in question.
The Court addressed an anticipatory bail plea from an individual charged under Sections 498-A and 406 of IPC for alleged cruelty and harassment towards his wife.
The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated in the case, citing marital discord as the reason for the FIR, which, according to him, did not warrant custodial interrogation.
After considering the submissions, the court deliberated on whether an accused’s conduct is a relevant factor in anticipatory bail adjudication.
Referring to Mohammed Zubair vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. and Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014), the Court emphasized the mandatory adherence to Sections 41 & 41-A of the CrPC by police, prosecution, and courts.
“While the legislative mandate in Sections 41 & 41-A of the CrPC cannot imply that the conduct of an accused is irrelevant, the court cannot ignore the accused’s misconduct while addressing an anticipatory bail petition. This interpretation is reinforced by the factors listed in Section 438(1) of Cr.P.C. for considering pre-arrest bail,” the Court opined.
In light of the petitioner’s documented threats to the complainant and her family after being granted interim pre-arrest bail, the court refused to extend anticipatory bail. Consequently, the plea was dismissed.
Case Title- Dilpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and another