LAWS(BOM)-1988-11-13

PANKAJ VIDHYASAGAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On November 18, 1988
PANKAJ VIDHYASAGAR GUPTA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant Pankaj Vidhyasagar Gupta filed an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for anticipatory bail. It was alleged in the said application that he has a reasonable apprehension that he may be arrested by the Mulund Police in C.R. No. 369 of 1988, which is registered on a complaint filed by his father-in-law Shri Manoharlal Kishorilal Gupta for offences punishable under section 143, 144, 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 324, 326 read with section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code. In the application the applicant has contended that a civil dispute is pending between him and his father-in-law in the High Court itself and he apprehends that with a mala fide intention his father-in-law might falsely involve him in this Criminal Case.

(2.) Initially, the matter came to be placed before the Single Judge of this Court Shri Tipnis, J. Smt. Keluskar, the learned Public Prosecutor contended before the Single Judge that since the offence involved is of murder, the Court should not grant anticipatory bail. In support of her submission, she placed strong reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal), page 106 (Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another) On the other hand, reliance was placed on the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in (Gurubaksh Singh and another v. The State of Punjab) A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632. on behalf of the applicant. The learned Single Judge found that in view of these decisions of the Supreme Court, and in view of the general public importance of law regarding anticipatory bail in cases of offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life it would be desirable that the matter should be placed before a Division Bench. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

(3.) With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, we have gone through the relevant judgments. The latter decision, (Kiran Devis case) on which reliance is placed by the learned Public Prosecutor, is a small order, which reads as under:---