Page 1

REPORTABLE     

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.   2049        OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4102 of 2013)

State of Madhya Pradesh               .... Appellant(s)

Versus

Pradeep Sharma                                             ....  Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.   2050         OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4406 of 2013)

J U D G M E N T

P.Sathasivam, CJI.

1) Leave granted.

2) These  appeals  are  filed  against  the  orders  dated  

10.01.2013  and  17.01.2013  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  

Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal  

Case  Nos.  9996  of  2012  and  15283 of  2012  respectively  

whereby  the  High  Court  granted  anticipatory  bail  to  the  

respondents herein.

1

Page 2

3) Brief facts:

a) The case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Singh Thakur  

(the deceased), resident of village Gopalpur, Tehsil Chaurai,  

District Chhindwara, Madhya Pradesh and Pradeep Sharma  

(respondent  herein),  resident  of  the  same  village,  were  

having enmity with each other on account of election to the  

post of Sarpanch.   

b) On 10.09.2011, Pradeep Sharma (respondent herein), in  

order  to  get  rid  of  Rajesh  Singh  Thakur  (the  deceased),  

conspired along with other accused persons and managed to  

call him to the Pawar Tea House, Chhindwara on the pretext  

of setting up of a tower in a field where they offered him  

poisoned milk rabri (sweet dish).  

c) After consuming the same, when he left the place to  

meet  his  sister,  his  condition  started  getting  deteriorated  

because of vomiting and diarrhea.  Immediately, the father  

of  the  deceased  took  him  to  the  District  Hospital,  

Chhindwara wherefrom he was referred to the Government  

Hospital, Chhindwara.   

2

Page 3

d) Since there was no improvement in  his  condition,  on  

11.09.2011,  he  was  shifted  to  the  Care  Hospital,  Nagpur  

where  he  took his  last  breath.   The hospital  certified  the  

cause of death to be poisoning.  On the very same day, after  

sending  the  information  to  the  Police  Station,  Sitabardi,  

Nagpur, the body was sent for the post mortem.   

e) Inder Singh Thakur-father of the deceased submitted a  

written complaint to the Police Station Kotwali, Chhindwara  

on 13.09.2011 suspecting the role of the respondents herein.  

After investigation, a First Information Report (in short ‘the  

FIR’) being No. 1034/2011 dated 18.10.2011 was registered  

under Sections 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code,  

1860 (in short ‘the IPC’).   

f) On  01.08.2012,  Pradeep  Sharma  (respondent  herein)  

moved  an  application  for  anticipatory  bail  by  filing  Misc.  

Criminal Case No. 7093 of 2012 before the High Court which  

got rejected vide order dated 01.08.2012 on the ground that  

custodial interrogation is necessary in the case.   

g) On 26.08.2012, a charge sheet was filed in the court of  

Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Chhindwara  against  Sanjay  

3

Page 4

Namdev,  Rahul  Borkar,  Ravi  Paradkar  and  Vijay  @  Monu  

Brahambhatt  whereas  the  investigation  in  respect  of  

Pradeep  Sharma,  Sudhir  Sharma  and  Gudda  @  Naresh  

Raghuvanshi  (respondents  herein),  absconding  accused,  

continued since the very date of the incident.   

h) On  21.11.2012,  arrest  warrants  were  issued  against  

Pradeep  Sharma,  Sudhir  Sharma  and  Gudda  @  Naresh  

Raghuvanshi  but  the  same  were  returned  to  the  Court  

without  service.   Since  the  accused  persons  were  not  

traceable, on 29.11.2012, a proclamation under Section 82  

of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’)  

was issued against them for their appearance to answer the  

complaint.   

i) Instead  of  appealing  the  order  dated  01.08.2012,  

Pradeep  Sharma  (respondent  herein)  filed  another  

application for anticipatory bail being Misc. Criminal Case No.  

9996  of  2012  before  the  High  Court.  Vide  order  dated  

10.01.2013,  the  High  Court  granted  anticipatory  bail  to  

Pradeep  Sharma  (respondent  herein).   Similarly,  another  

accused-Gudda  @  Naresh  Raghuvanshi  was  granted  

4

Page 5

anticipatory  bail  by  the  High  Court  vide  order  dated  

17.01.2013 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 15283 of 2012.    

j) Being aggrieved by the orders dated 10.01.2013 and  

17.01.2013,  State of  Madhya Pradesh has filed the above  

appeals before this Court.  

k) In the meantime, the respondents herein approached  

the  Court  of  Chief  Judicial  Magistrate,  Chhindwara  for  the  

grant  of  regular  bail.   Vide  order  dated  20.02.2013,  the  

accused persons were enlarged on bail.                

4) Heard Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel  

for  the  appellant-State  and  Mr.  Niraj  Sharma,  learned  

counsel for the respondents.

5) The only question for consideration in these appeals is  

whether the High Court is justified in granting anticipatory  

bail  under  Section  438  of  the  Code  to  the  

respondents/accused  when  the  investigation  is  pending,  

particularly, when both the accused had been absconding all  

along and not cooperating with the investigation.  

6) Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned senior counsel for the  

appellant-State,  by  drawing  our  attention  to  the  charge  

5

Page 6

sheet,  submitted  that  the  charges  filed  against  the  

respondents/accused relate to Sections 302, 120B and 34 of  

the IPC which are all serious offences and also of the fact  

that both of them being absconders from the very date of  

the  incident,  the  High  Court  is  not  justified  in  granting  

anticipatory  bail  that  too  without  proper  analysis  and  

discussion.  

7) On the other hand, Mr. Niraj Sharma, learned counsel  

for the respondents in both the appeals supported the order  

passed by the High Court and prayed for  dismissal  of the  

appeals filed by the State.  

8) We have carefully perused the relevant materials and  

considered the rival contentions.  

9) In order to answer the above question, it is desirable to  

refer Section 438 of the Code which reads as under:-   

“438.  Direction  for  grant  of  bail  to  person  apprehending arrest.—(1) Where any person has reason  to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having  committed  a  non-bailable  offence,  he  may  apply  to  the  High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this  section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released  on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration,  inter alia, the following factors, namely—

(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;

6

Page 7

(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact  as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment  on  conviction  by  a  Court  in  respect  of  any  cognizable  offence;

(iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;  and

(iv)  where  the  accusation  has  been  made  with  the  object  of  injuring  or  humiliating  the applicant  by  having  him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim  order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may  be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order  under this sub-section or has rejected the application for  grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in  charge of  a police station to arrest,  without  warrant the  applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in  such application.

Xxx xxx xxx”

10) The  above  provision  makes  it  clear  that  the  power  

exercisable  under  Section  438  of  the  Code  is  somewhat  

extraordinary in character and it is to be exercised only in  

exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be  

falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for  

holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to  

otherwise misuse his liberty.

11) In Adri Dharan Das vs. State of W.B., (2005) 4 SCC  

303, this Court considered the scope of Section 438 of the  

Code as under:-

7

Page 8

“16. Section  438  is  a  procedural  provision  which  is  concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who is  entitled to plead innocence, since he is not on the date of  application for exercise of power under Section 438 of the  Code convicted for the offence in respect of which he seeks  bail.  The  applicant  must  show  that  he  has  “reason  to  believe” that he may be arrested in a non-bailable offence.  Use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the  belief that the applicant may be arrested must be founded  on  reasonable  grounds.  Mere  “fear”  is  not  “belief”  for  which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that  he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is  going to make an accusation against him in pursuance of  which he may be arrested. Grounds on which the belief of  the  applicant  is  based that  he  may be arrested in  non- bailable offence must be capable of being examined. If an  application  is  made  to  the  High  Court  or  the  Court  of  Session, it is for the court concerned to decide whether a  case has been made out for granting of the relief sought.  The  provisions  cannot  be  invoked  after  arrest  of  the  accused. A blanket order should not be generally passed. It  flows from the very language of the section which requires  the applicant to show that he has reason to believe that he  may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on  reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to  go  by  on  the  basis  of  which  it  can  be  said  that  the  applicant’s  apprehension  that  he  may  be  arrested  is  genuine. Normally a direction should not issue to the effect  that  the  applicant  shall  be  released  on  bail  “whenever  arrested for whichever offence whatsoever”. Such “blanket  order” should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket  to  cover  or  protect  any  and  every  kind  of  allegedly  unlawful activity. An order under Section 438 is a device to  secure the individual’s  liberty,  it  is neither a passport  to  the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all  kinds of accusations likely or unlikely. On the facts of the  case, considered in the background of the legal position set  out above, this does not prima facie appear to be a case  where any order in terms of Section 438 of the Code can  be passed.”

8

Page 9

12) Recently, in Lavesh vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012)  

8 SCC 730,  this  Court,  (of  which both of us were parties)  

considered the scope of  granting relief  under Section 438  

vis-à-vis to a person who was declared as an absconder or  

proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code.  In  

para 12, this Court held as under:

“12. From these materials and information, it is clear that  the present appellant was not available for  interrogation  and  investigation  and  was  declared  as  “absconder”.  Normally, when the accused is “absconding” and declared  as  a  “proclaimed  offender”,  there  is  no  question  of  granting anticipatory bail. We reiterate that when a person  against  whom  a  warrant  had  been  issued  and  is  absconding  or  concealing  himself  in  order  to  avoid  execution  of  warrant  and  declared  as  a  proclaimed  offender  in  terms  of  Section  82  of  the  Code  he  is  not  entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.”

It is clear from the above decision that if anyone is declared  

as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82  

of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory  

bail.   In the case on hand, a perusal of the materials i.e.,  

confessional statements of Sanjay Namdev, Pawan Kumar @  

Ravi  and  Vijay  @  Monu  Brahambhatt  reveals  that  the  

respondents  administered  poisonous  substance  to  the  

deceased.  Further, the statements of witnesses that were  

9

Page 10

recorded  and  the  report  of  the  Department  of  Forensic  

Medicine  &  Toxicology  Government  Medical  College  &  

Hospital,  Nagpur  dated  21.03.2012  have  confirmed  the  

existence of poison in milk rabri. Further, it is brought to our  

notice  that  warrants  were  issued  on  21.11.2012  for  the  

arrest  of  the  respondents  herein.   Since  they  were  not  

available/traceable, a proclamation under Section 82 of the  

Code was issued on 29.11.2012.  The documents (Annexure-

P13)  produced  by  the  State  clearly  show  that  the  CJM,  

Chhindwara,  M.P.  issued  a  proclamation  requiring  the  

appearance of both the respondents/accused under Section  

82 of the Code to answer the complaint on 29.12.2012.  All  

these materials were neither adverted to nor considered by  

the High Court while granting anticipatory bail and the High  

Court,  without  indicating any reason except  stating “facts  

and  circumstances  of  the  case”,  granted  an  order  of  

anticipatory bail to both the accused.  It is relevant to point  

out that both the accused are facing prosecution for offences  

punishable under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section  

34  of  IPC.   In  such  serious  offences,  particularly,  the  

10

Page 11

respondents/accused  being  proclaimed  offenders,  we  are  

unable  to  sustain  the  impugned  orders  of  granting  

anticipatory bail.  The High Court failed to appreciate that it  

is a settled position of law that where the accused has been  

declared as an absconder and has not cooperated with the  

investigation, he should not be granted anticipatory bail.   

13) In  the  light  of  what  is  stated  above,  the  impugned  

orders of the High Court dated 10.01.2013 and 17.01.2013 in  

Misc. Criminal Case Nos. 9996 of 2012 and 15283 of 2012  

respectively are set  aside.   Consequently,  the subsequent  

order  of  the  CJM dated  20.02.2013 in  Crime No.  1034  of  

2011 releasing the accused on bail  after taking them into  

custody in compliance with the impugned order of the High  

Court is also set aside.  

14) In view of the same, both the respondents/accused are  

directed to  surrender  before the  court  concerned within  a  

period of two weeks failing which the trial Court is directed  

to take them into custody and send them to jail.   

15) Both the appeals are allowed on the above terms.  

11

Page 12

       ………….…………………………CJI.              (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

   .………….……………………………J.               (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 6, 2013.

12