SAMEER NARAYANRAO PALTEWAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally.

(2.) What is the fate of an accused in the State of Maharashtra who is directed to remain present in the Sessions Court pursuant to a direction under Section 438(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and his application for anticipatory bail is rejected? Is he not exposed to immediate arrest, as the interim protection operating during pendency of the application vanishes with the dismissal of the application? Is he then not deprived of opportunity to move the High Court for grant of anticipatory bail by invoking the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.? These are the questions that fall for consideration in the present application.

(3.) The applicant before this Court contends that appropriate directions are required from this Court in the context of Section 438(4) of the Cr.P.C., Maharashtra Amendment, so as to ensure that the very remedy of prearrest bail or anticipatory bail is not frustrated when the Sessions Court directs the accused to remain present under the said provision at the time of final hearing of the application for anticipatory bail. The contention is that when the presence of the accused is insisted upon under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C., in the eventuality of the application for anticipatory bail being rejected, interim protection needs to be extended for a reasonable time, so that the accused is not deprived of the opportunity to knock the doors of the High Court to seek anticipatory bail, as the High Court exercises concurrent jurisdiction in the matter. The submission is that in the absence of any such direction, the moment an anticipatory bail application of an accused is rejected and the applicant (accused) is obliged to remain present before the Sessions Court pursuant to direction under Section 438(4) of Cr.P.C., there is every possibility of the Investigating Officer arresting the accused then and there, as a result of which, the accused would stand deprived of approaching the High Court, thereby frustrating the very remedy available under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.