SHUKOOR Vs. M S KANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the petitioner's learned Advocate and the learned state Public Prosecutor on merits. Though the cause list does not show the appearance of the learned State Public Prosecutor on behalf of the respondent, we had earlier directed him to take notice which he has done.

(2.) IT is unfortunate that the petitioner's learned Advocate had to file a contempt proceeding in the present case but the learned Advocate points out to us that it was necessary also from another point of view viz. , that there are numerous instances when parties obtain anticipatory bail orders and either the police or the Trial Court refuses to implement them straightaway. For instance, it was brought to our notice that if procedural obstacles are put up, that the whole purpose of the bail order gets frustrated insofar as by default the beneficiary viz. , the accused has either been taken into custody or remains in custody. In the present instance, because the learned Magistrate rejected the initial application, the accused was required to remain in custody for a considerable period of time and that damage cannot now be undone. What is pointed out to us is that generally, when an anticipatory bail order is passed either by the High Court or by the Sessions Court, that it is required ipso facto to be obeyed/implemented by the police if they are the arresting authority or by the lower Court before which that order is produced. This position is absolutely right. We need to point out very clearly that if this Court comes across a single incident when either a police officer or a judicial officer refuses to respect the anticipatory bail order that is produced that this Court will have no hesitation in taking stringent steps for criminal contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act irrespective of who the defaulter is. This is very necessary as otherwise the whole purpose of obtaining the anticipatory bail is totally frustrated.

(3.) IT has been pointed out to us at the Bar that another wrong procedure which is being insisted upon by these authorities is that a fresh bail application be made and that orders be passed on that after which the remaining formalities such as surety etc. , are taken up. This procedure is wrong; it is not only cumbersome, unnecessary and time consuming; all that the party or the learned Advocate is required to do is to file a simple application or a memo producing the certified copy of the anticipatory bail order mentioning therein that the requisite formalities such as the production of surety etc. are being complied with. There is no need nor is there any sanction for the authority concerned to reopen the bail question as that has already been decided through the anticipatory bail order. The same procedure will hold good where a superior Court has granted bail in normal course and the copy of the order is produced before the lower authority or Court. We need to clarify this because the learned Advocates present before us made a serious grievance with regard to the wrong procedure that is being followed and they submitted that appropriate directions for correcting the same are necessary.