The Hindu : New Delhi News : “Restore the provision of anticipatory bail”

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 01, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

New Delhi

New Delhi

“Restore the provision of anticipatory bail”

J. Venkatesan

Supreme Court tells U.P. Govt. to issue an Ordinance

The U.P. Government had amended the Cr PC in 1976 to withdraw this provision
Appeal against a Karnataka High Court judgment dismissed

NEW DELHI: Justice Markandey Katju of the Supreme Court has recommended to the Uttar Pradesh Government to issue an Ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail to an accused. The Uttar Pradesh Government had amended the Cr PC in 1976 to withdraw this provision in the State.

Mr. Justice Katju, sitting in a Bench with Justice H. K. Sema, made this recommendation while dismissing an appeal from Som Mittal, Managing Director of a company, against a Karnataka High Court judgment refusing to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act for the alleged murder of a woman employee while she was returning home from her workplace.

Mr. Justice Sema said the High Court could not exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr PC (to quash a criminal proceeding) in a routine manner. The power under this section must be exercised sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases.

Mr. Justice Katju agreed with Mr. Justice Sema’s conclusions but cited the situation prevalent in Uttar Pradesh where courts were flooded with petitions under Section 482 seeking to quash criminal proceedings since there was no anticipatory bail provision in that State.

Mr. Justice Katju said it was necessary to restore the provision for anticipatory bail to empower the Allahabad High Court as well as the Sessions courts in UP to grant anticipatory bail. He said that an individual’s arrest on frivolous grounds violated his fundamental right and the absence of the provision was causing hardship as scores of false dowry harassment cases were being filed against innocent people.

“Often grandmothers, uncles, aunts, unmarried sisters and others are implicated in such cases even though they may have nothing to do with the offence,” he said.

Mr. Justice Katju said “no doubt the recommendation of a court is not binding on the State government/State legislature but still it should be seriously considered, and not simply ignored. The court usually makes a recommendation when it feels that the public is facing some hardship. Such recommendation should, therefore, be given respect and serious consideration.”

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

New Delhi