Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 374 (KER)

Jaya Rajan v. State of Kerala

2007-06-22

R.BASANT

body2007
Judgment :- R.Basant, J. Is the petitioner, in whose favour directions under S.438 Cr.P.C had been issued, liable to continue to comply with the conditions imposed while granting such an order of anticipatory bail even when he later seeks and obtains regular bail from the competent Court? This is the question of interest raised before this Court in this Criminal Miscellaneous case by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I am informed that confusion prevails in the minds of even counsel and Magistrates on this aspect, not to speak of the travails of the police and accused persons. 2. To the skeletal facts first. The petitioner approached this Court with an application for anticipatory bail under S.438 Cr.P.C. He who faces allegations inter cilia under S.406 I.P.C was granted anticipatory bail for a period of one month by another Bench of this Court. The said Bench observed that the anticipatory hail order was to hold the field for a period of one month within which period the petitioner was to surrender before the learned Magistrate and seek regular bail. Conditions were also imposed by the learned Judge, which included the condition that the petitioner must report before the investigating officer on all Wednesdays. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that within the said period of one month, the petitioner had appeared before the learned Magistrate and sought regular hail. Regular bail was granted also. That regular bail was granted not subject to any conditions, submits the learned counsel. Is the petitioner, thereafter, liable to comply with the conditions imposed when anticipatory bail was granted? That is the question that is raised now. The petitioner has come to this Court with a prayer that the said conditions may be deleted. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the position is not clarified, unnecessary confusion and chaos is likely to result. Police and the learned Magistrate insist on such compliance, it is submitted. 4. I find absolutely no scope for any confusion or chaos. Anticipatory bail has been granted subject to conditions. I have in Jyothish v State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 176) after adverting to all the precedents, taken the view that it is not ordinarily necessary to limit the operation of the order to any specific period of time. 4. I find absolutely no scope for any confusion or chaos. Anticipatory bail has been granted subject to conditions. I have in Jyothish v State of Kerala (2007 (3) KLT 176) after adverting to all the precedents, taken the view that it is not ordinarily necessary to limit the operation of the order to any specific period of time. Unless specific reasons emerge in the facts of a given case it is not necessary to limit the period of operation of the order invariably in all cases. But in this case the learned Judge, on the facts of the case, has granted an order of anticipatory bail limited to a specific period. The important condition in the order is that the order shall live and remain in force only for a period of one month. Within the period of one month, the petitioner is obliged to seek regular bail from the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate must within that period consider the application on merits and pass appropriate orders. Certainly unless there are other specific observations in the order of the superior Court, any Magistrate must be persuaded or led by the fact that the superior Court has, after considering the materials, come to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail itself. While considering the exercise of discretion to grant regular bail or not, certainly the fact that the superior Court had granted anticipatory bail would influence and must weigh with the Magistrate. But certainly the conditions imposed by the superior Court cannot over live the period of life of the anticipatory bail order. I am, in these circumstances, of the opinion that when regular bail is obtained from the learned Magistrate after the accused surrenders within the prescribed period in terms of the anticipatory bail granted, the conditions that would bind the accused thereafter are not the conditions imposed in the order of anticipatory bail but only conditions which are imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting regular bail. The learned Magistrate may re-impose the conditions, which are imposed by the superior Court in the anticipatory bail application. He may choose to impose different conditions, if circumstances require. He may choose not to impose any condition at all. The learned Magistrate may re-impose the conditions, which are imposed by the superior Court in the anticipatory bail application. He may choose to impose different conditions, if circumstances require. He may choose not to impose any condition at all. At any rate, I am unable to accept the argument that the conditions imposed in the anticipatory hail order shall continue to remain in force even without any subsequent order by the learned Magistrate. Such conditions are imposed by the superior Court to regulate the conduct of the accused till he secures regular bail. Supposing the accused chooses not to surrender before the learned Magistrate within the stipulated period, then the protection of the order will not be available to the accused after elapse of the period stipulated. That means the order of anticipatory bail lapses after the prescribed period. That order does not live to offer any protection beyond the stipulated period. In these circumstances, the conditions imposed cannot certainly outlive or live beyond the order itself. I find this petition hence to he without any merit. If the learned Magistrate has imposed any condition on the petitioner, he can seek modification/deletion of that condition before the learned Magistrate. He is not bound to comply with the conditions stipulated in the anticipatory bail order (unless re-imposed by the learned Magistrate) beyond the period prescribed. 5. This Criminal Miscellaneous case is, in these circumstances, dismissed with the above observations.