The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while rejecting an anticipatory bail application of a person from Panna district, observed that although bail is considered a right of an accused, the same cannot be said for anticipatory bail. The court emphasized that granting interim protection in serious cases could lead to a miscarriage of justice and significantly hamper investigations, potentially causing tampering or destruction of evidence.
Supreme Court Precedent Cited
Justice Ramkumar Choubey, presiding over the case, referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani, which held that the power to grant anticipatory bail should not be exercised routinely but with great circumspection. The judge reiterated that each case must be evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances.
Details of the Case
The application was filed by Rampal Yadav, who feared arrest under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act for allegedly storing 66 liters of illicit liquor in a pit within his cowshed. The prosecution argued that the cowshed belonged to Yadav, where the liquor was discovered. Yadav contended that he was implicated solely based on his nephew's statement, who was arrested at the scene, and claimed no involvement in the crime.
After hearing both sides, the bench noted that while there have been instances where the MP High Court granted anticipatory bail in cases under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act, Section 59(1) of the same Act explicitly bars courts from entertaining such applications. The court stated, "Though in many cases, it was held that bail is the rule, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that anticipatory bail is the rule. It cannot be the rule, and the question of its grant should be left to the cautious and judicious discretion by the court depending on the facts and circumstances of each case."
Court's Observations
The judge further remarked that granting anticipatory bail in serious offenses could lead to obstruction of justice. The decision underscores the judiciary's stance that anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy, not a default entitlement. The court dismissed the application, reinforcing the legal bar under the Excise Act.
