BABLU DEY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr A.S. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners well as Mr D. Goswami, learned P.P, Assam. This is an application under Sec. 438 CrPC for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner Badu Dey as he apprehends that he may be arrested by police in connection with RPF/Post/NBQ Case No.2(7)/95 under Sec. 3(a) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966.

(2.) Proviso to sub-section 2 of sec. 8 of the Act provides that if the officer of the post is of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case or forward him in cutody to such Magistrate.

(3.) From the aforesaid proviso to sub-section 2 of Sec. 8 of the Act, it is clear that when a person is arrested on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act, he has a right to be admitted to bail on condition to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction over the case provided he is ready to give bail. If he is not ready to give bail, then the arresting authority will be left with no option, but to forward the accused before the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter. Therefore, it is apparent that when an accused has a right to be released on bail soon after his arrest provided he is ready to give bail, there cannot be any other opinion except that the offences contemplated under the Act are all bailable. However, Mr Choudhury, submits that a number of accused arrested in connection with this case are being detained in custody without releasing them on bail, despite the fact that on behalf of such accused prayers were made before the arresting officer as well as the concerned Magistrate for releasing them on bail. In these circumstances, Mr Choudhury insists that prayer for anticipatory bail should be allowed. But in view of my conclusion that the offences contemplated under the Act ate clearly bailable offences, in view of what is provided under the proviso to sub-section 2 of section 8 of the Act I am unable to hold that the offences are non bailable. Therefore, accused has clearly a right to be released on bail the moment he is arrested in connection with the offences under the aforesaid Act provided he is ready to give bail. If despite this, he is not given bail, he may have remedy against the arresting authority under the appropriate provisions of law including suit for damages/compensation.