NARSINGH LAL DAGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for anticipatory bail. A rule was issued and it was ordered that the petitioners would not be arrested till the final disposal of this petition. The case against the petitioners is under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (herein - after to be referred to as the Act) and Rule 114 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 (hereinafter to be called the Rules).

(2.) Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of Rule. It is to be franted only in special cases where some influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purposes of disregarding them or for other purposes by getting them detained in Jail for some days. This is the main reason by the Law Commission of India in its first Report for introducing provision for anticipatory bail in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code). In that reason, however, there is a sentence which reads as follows: Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bails. Mr. Sanyal appearing for the petitioners has strongly relied on the above quoted sentence in the Report of the Law Commission of India and has submitted that anticipatory bail should be granted even in cases other than those of implication of rivals by the complainant in false causes for the purpose of disgracing them. The above quoted sentence in the Report of the Law Commission does not mean that anticipatory bail has to be granted in each and every case. If that would have been the intention then there would have been no necessity of retaining general provision for bail in the Code after the provision for anticipatory bail was introduced therein. Ordinarity, there should be a presumption in favour of every citizen that he is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail. But such presumptions are generally belied and one cannot be granted anticipatory bail on that account. According to the sentence, a person may be granted anticipatory bail only when the Court is convinced that the person is of such a status that he would not abscond or otherwise misuse this liberty. Even when there was no provision for anticipatory bail, such person were released without a bail or if they gave a personal understanding to appear before the Court when called upon to do so. In the present case, there is nothing before this Court on the basis of which it can be held that the petitioners are such persons who are not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse their liberty. The petitioners, therefore, cannot claim grant of anticipatory bail on the basis of the above quoted sentence in the Report of Law Commission.

(3.) Mr. Sanyal has then argued on the merits of the case and has urged that the allegations do not make out a case under Rule 114 of the Rules and, therefore, it is a case where the petitioners should be granted bail. It is true that sometimes some rule of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules is quoted in the report submitted by the police officers merely to make the case serious and disentitle the accused of bail which he would ordinarily get. For an offence under Rule 114 of the Rules, unless the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of contravention of the rule, he should not be released on bail. I do not want to express any opinion at this stage when only an application for anticipatory bail has been made on the question as to whether on the allegations the petitioners can be said to have contravened any provision of the Rule. But I would like to observe that after the petitioners surrender and make an application for bail, the court to which such application is made will not be influenced in the least by this order refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioners or by the fact that Rule 114 of the Rules is also mentioned in the report against them; the court will consider the case of the petitioners as merits and pass necessary orders.