V NANDANAN Vs. DIG OF POLICE CRIME HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that poses for consideration is whether this is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest and it is effective at the very moment of arrest unlike ordinary bail which is granted after arrest. The prohibition in S. 437(1) that a person against whom there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life shall not be released on bail is not there in S. 438 and it cannot be read into that section also. The discretion in granting anticipatory bail is very wide. But that judicial discretion has to be exercised only if the Court of Session or the High Court considers it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. Discretion to refuse anticipatory bail is also there if the circumstances of the case so warrant, on considerations alike those mentioned in S. 437 or which are generally considered to be relevant under S. 439. The Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail if the materials on record justify such refusal. It is true that Art. 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. In order to meet this challenge the grounds for refusal of anticipatory bail must be fair, just and reasonable. The Court has also to see that investigation is the province of the police and an order for anticipatory bail should not operate as an inroad into the investigational powers of the police. In this connection it is relevant to note the observation of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 :

(2.) Petitioner is the Manager (under suspension) of the Ernakulam branch of the Dhanalakshmi Bank. A draft for Rs. One crore was issued purporting to be from that branch at a time when the petitioner was the manager. Petitioner and the respondent have two different versions regarding the draft and the circumstances under which it came into existence. Anyhow it is common ground that it is a spurious draft. The Bank had authority to issue draft only up to rupees nine lakhs while the impugned draft is for rupees one crore.

(3.) As Manager the petitioner was admittedly the exclusive custodian of the draft book. But he says that as a matter of practice access to the book is given to the peon who used to take them to the Manager whenever necessary. Petitioner's case is this. One Krishna Kumar approached him for a draft for Rs. 5,000/-. When the peon brought the draft book one sheet was found missing and he was told about this by the peon whose name is Radha-krishnan. Draft was issued to Krishna Kumar in the next sheet and the office was instructed to make note of the missing sheet. Head Office was also informed. Thereafter Krishna Kumar wanted refund of the draft amount to be paid to peon Radhakrishnan and the papers also to be returned to him. It was the missing sheet that was utilised for creating the spurious draft which was produced, in Andhra Pradesh by one Dhananjayan, who is said to be rich and influential. It is the further case of the petitioner that he has no hand in the transaction and Krishna Kumar, Dhananjayan and their associates are now attempting to use their influence to implicate him.