“In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Pradeep Sharma, it is observed and held by this court that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), he is not entitled to relief of anticipatory bail,” the judgment said.
Pertinently, the Court also held that a person will not be entitled to anticipatory bail merely because the nature of accusation arose out of a business transaction.
Even in the case of a business transaction also, there may be offences under the IPC, the Court said.
The present case arose after a cheque given by the accused as part of a business transaction came to be dishonoured.
A first information report (FIR) was lodged against the respondent-accused for offences under Sections 406, 407, 468, 506 of the IPC and a warrant of arrest came to be issued by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Saran, Chapra.
The accused absconded and hid himself to avoid service of warrant of arrest. The CJM then issued a proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC asking the accused to appear.
The accused then moved the trial court for anticipatory bail which was dismissed after which he approached the High Court.
The High Court allowed the plea on the ground that the nature of accusation arose out of a business transaction.
This led to the present appeal by the complainant before the Supreme Court.
Advocate Rituraj Biswas, appearing for the appellant-complainant, submitted that the accused had been absconding and did not co-operate with the investigating agency. Further, he contended that anticipatory bail should not be granted to a person against whom proclamation under Section 82 was issued.
Advocate Abhishek appearing for the accused, submitted that the High Court has rightly observed that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction. He argued that merely because the cheque was given and the same came to be dishonored it cannot be said that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC was made out and that at the most the case may fall under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
He also emphasised that the accused is available for interrogation and is not absconding.
The Court, however, turned down the arguments of the accused.
It noted that after investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
“Thus, it has been found that there is a prima facie case against the accused. It has come on record that the arrest warrant was issued by the Magistrate as far as back on December 19, 2018 and thereafter proceedings under sections 82, 83 of Cr.PC have been initiated,” the apex court observed.
These aspects were ignored by the High Court while granting bail to the accused, the top court said.
“The specific allegations of cheating, etc., which came to be considered by learned Additional Sessions Judge has not at all been considered by the High Court. Even the High Court has just ignored the factum of initiation of proceedings under sections 82/83 of CrPC by simply observing that “be that as it may”. The aforesaid relevant aspect on grant of anticipatory bail ought not to have been ignored by the High Court and ought to have been considered by the High Court very seriously and not casually,” the Supreme Court stated.
Regarding the argument that the accusation arose out of a business transaction, the Court held that what is required to be considered is the nature of allegation and the accusation and not that the nature of accusation is arising out of a business transaction.
In view of the above, the Court set aside the High Court verdict.
