VENKATACHALALAH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal petitions have been referred to this Bench to decide

(2.) IN the said case of Dr. Ebenezer, supra, the petitioner had approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Cr. P. C. challenging the order of the Trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner under Section 317 of the Cr. P. C. and issuing NEW against him. In this regard, the learned Judge after interpreting the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v state of Punjab, disagreed with the view expressed by Full Bench of andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Smt. Sheik Khasim Bi v state. The learned Judge on consideration of the rival contentions held that, "in the backdrop of the object and purpose of the provisions of anticipatory bail, it does not really warrant to make the provision of section 438 of the Cr. P. C. applicable after filing of a final report and grant of anticipatory bail in such a situation is only a redundant effort". As this view has been doubted by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Manjula Chellur, she referred these petitions for consideration of the aforesaid question.

(3.) TO understand the law regarding anticipatory bail we have to look into the recommendations of the Law Commission of India in its 41st report introducing the provision of Section 438 of the Cr. P. C. as well as various pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard.