BRIJESH GARG Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) EXPRESSING the view that the issues involved appear to be unsettled and should get the finality not only for the benefit of the parties but also for the benefit of subordinate Courts, the learned Single Judge referred following questions to be adjudicated by a Larger Bench and that is how the matter has been placed before us:- (i) Whether anticipatory bail order should be for a limited duration or the normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order ? (ii) Whether the protective umbrella granted under the anticipatory bail order can be claimed by the petitioner in case where his application for regular bail has been rejected by the Court of Sessions and in such a situation whether his application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 would be maintainable? (iii) Where the petitioner who has been enlarged on anticipatory bail for a limited duration and whose application under section 439 of the code is rejected by the Sessions Court, but at the time of consideration of his application, either he was not present before the Court or he moved out of the custody of the Court, whether his application would be maintainable under Section 439 of the Code before the high Court ?

(2.) THE brief facts of the case lying in a narrow compass and relevant to the decision of this case are that applicant Vijay Garg @ Poda had filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the code which was allowed by a learned Single Judge vide order dated 5-5-05, passed in miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 910/05 in the following terms:-

(3.) THE Counsel for the applicant submitted before the Special Judge that a period of 15 days may be granted to him to obtain the bail order from the high Court. Accordingly, the Special Judge granted 15 days time to obtain the orders from the High Court.