The Supreme Court has clarified that while a court has the authority to reject an anticipatory bail application, it cannot direct the accused to surrender before the trial court. A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made this observation while hearing a plea from a man accused of cheating and forgery.
“If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender,” the bench observed.
The case originated from a land dispute where a complaint was filed before a magistrate alleging offences under sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document), and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Jharkhand High Court had previously rejected the accused’s anticipatory bail plea, directing him to surrender and seek regular bail. The high court dismissed the second anticipatory bail application, citing that no new circumstances had been presented. The Supreme Court’s ruling sets an important precedent, emphasizing that courts cannot exceed their jurisdiction by imposing surrender orders when rejecting anticipatory bail.
