CrPC Section 438 — Anticipatory bail

Judgments citing CrPC Section 438

1. Pokkula Veera Raghavulu vs The State of Telangana on 11 August, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana11 Aug 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Anticipatory bail can be granted even after issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. 2. Police harassment during investigation, even without arrest, is a ground for consideration in anticipatory bail petitions. 3. Offences punishable with imprisonment less than 7 years are a relevant factor in considering anticipatory bail. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner, Pokkula Veera Raghavulu, filed a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 135/2023 registered at Kodad (R) Police Station, Suryapet District, for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The allegation was that the Petitioner, a neighbor of the defacto complainant, made inappropriate remarks and assaulted her. Held: A. On Anticipatory Bail & Section 438 Cr.P.C.: Majority View: The Court disposed of the Criminal Petition, clarifying that the police shall not harass the Petitioner under the guise of investigation. The Court considered the fact that notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. had already been issued. Dissent

2. Bonagiri Gangarajam @ Gangadhar & Anr. vs The State of Telangana on 04 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. An applicant may withdraw a bail application with the permission of the Court. 2. Upon withdrawal of a bail application, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 3. Any miscellaneous petitions pending in connection with the matter shall stand closed. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition sought the enlargement of the petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No. 327 of 2022, registered at Police Station Jagtial Rural, Jagtial District. Held: A. On Bail Application Withdrawal: Majority View: The Court granted permission to the petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the bail application. Dissenting View: None. B. On Petition Dismissal: Majority View: Consequently, the Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. C. On Pending Miscellaneous Petitions: Majority View: Any pending miscellaneous petitions were directed to stand closed. Dissenting View: None. Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with directions regarding pending miscellaneous petitions. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: Bonagiri Gangarajam @ Gangadhar & Anr. vs The State of Tel

3. Chander Bhushan Singh vs The State of Telangana on 06 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana6 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. Anticipatory bail applications can be withdrawn with the permission of the Court. 2. Upon withdrawal of an application, the Court may dismiss the petition. 3. Direction to police to enlarge petitioners on bail becomes irrelevant upon withdrawal of the petition. Judgment Summary Background: This Criminal Petition sought anticipatory bail for the Petitioners, Chander Bhushan Singh and Priyanka, in connection with Crime No. 81 of 2022 registered with the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. The charges included offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, Section 5 of the TS PDFE Act, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation (Banning) Act, 1978. Held: A. On Withdrawal of Petition: Majority View: The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought permission to withdraw the bail application. The Court granted permission and accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. B. On Anticipatory Bail: Majority View: No ruling was made on the merits of the anticipatory bail application as it was withdrawn. Dissenting View: None. C. On Offences under IPC, TS PDFE Act and P

4. Arkuti Mahesh vs The State of Telangana on 04 April, 2023

   High Court of High Court for State of Telangana4 Apr 2023

   Case Name: Court: Date of Judgment: Bench: Subject: Key Legal Propositions 1. 2. 3. Judgment Summary Background: The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) in connection with Crime No. 35 of 2023, registered at Ellanthakunta Police Station, Rajanna Sircilla District, for offences under Sections 354-D, 290, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). Held: A. On Anticipatory Bail: Majority View: The Petitioner withdrew the Criminal Petition. The Court granted permission for withdrawal and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. Dissenting View: N/A B. On Section 438 Cr.P.C.: Majority View: N/A Dissenting View: N/A C. On Offences under IPC and POCSO Act: Majority View: N/A Dissenting View: N/A Decision: The Criminal Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Any pending miscellaneous petitions were also closed. --- Additional Required Fields Case Title: Arkuti Mahesh vs The State of Telangana on 04 April, 2023 Keywords: anticipatory bail, section 438 crpc, withdrawal of petition, ipc 354-d, ipc 290, ipc 323, ipc 506, pocs

5. Jaikaran vs State (NCT) of Delhi on 17 November, 2023

   High Court of Delhi17 Nov 2023

   Case Name: Jaikaran vs State (NCT) of Delhi on 17 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 17 November, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail – Offences under Sections 403/406/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Key Legal Propositions 1. A dispute arising from business transactions, even if seemingly civil in nature, can have criminal implications if it involves inducement, breach of trust, and misappropriation of funds. 2. Failure to cooperate with the investigating agency, despite court directions, can be a significant factor in denying anticipatory bail. 3. Forensic evidence, such as handwriting analysis, corroborating the prosecution's case, strengthens the grounds for denying anticipatory bail. Judgment Summary Background: The present application concerns an anticipatory bail plea filed by Jaikaran, accused of offences under Sections 403/406/420/34 of the IPC. The complainant alleged that Jaikaran induced him to invest in land at Palwal, received funds from the complainant and potential buyers, but failed to deliver the land or account for the funds. The case involved a land transaction, advance payments, and alle

6. Satish Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi on 5th January, 2023

   High Court of Delhi

   Case Name: Satish Kumar vs State of NCT of Delhi on 5th January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 5th January, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail – Section 438 CrPC – Principles of Bail – Personal Liberty – Investigation Cooperation Key Legal Propositions 1. The principle of ‘bail and not jail’ should be enforced, recognizing denial of bail as deprivation of personal liberty. 2. Exercise of discretion in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC requires careful consideration of facts and circumstances, differing from regular bail applications. 3. Section 438 CrPC should be interpreted liberally, prioritizing individual liberty unless there is a clear misuse potential. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 687/2022 registered under Sections 406/506 IPC, relating to a dispute over the sale of a vehicle. The complainant alleged that the petitioner forcibly took possession of the vehicle, while the petitioner claimed a valid sale with payment made. A civil suit regarding the transaction was also pending, with an interim order in favour of the petitioner.

7. Ashwani Kumar vs State on 13 January, 2023

   High Court of Delhi13 Jan 2023

   Case Name: Ashwani Kumar vs State on 13 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 13 January, 2023 Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan Subject: Criminal Law – Quashing of Non-Bailable Warrant – Abuse of Process – Absence of Accused – Section 482 CrPC – Anticipatory Bail Key Legal Propositions 1. Courts may refuse to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC if the conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide or there is a possibility of misusing the process of law. 2. A person evading the process of law for a long time should submit themselves to the court’s authority, and relief should not be granted to encourage abuse of legal processes. 3. The High Court will not interfere with a trial court’s order issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant when the petitioner is absconding, has not cooperated with the investigation, and has suppressed material facts. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenged an order dated 19.10.2022 issuing a Non-Bailable Warrant (NBW) against the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0299/2020, registered under Sections 419/420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 66C & D of the Information Technology

8. SOURAV KASHYAP@ SUNNY vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 01 December, 2023

   High Court of Delhi1 Dec 2023

   Case Name: SOURAV KASHYAP@ SUNNY vs THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. on 01 December, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 01.12.2023 Bench: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Offences under Sections 376/506 IPC – Allegations of sexual assault and threats – Consideration of CDRs, statements under Section 161 & 164 CrPC, and contradictory complaints. Key Legal Propositions 1. The Court will consider the totality of circumstances, including CDRs, statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC, and the nature of allegations, when deciding an application for anticipatory bail. 2. The existence of a prior consensual relationship does not negate the possibility of subsequent non-consensual acts, particularly when allegations involve false pretenses of marriage and subsequent threats. 3. The lodging of counter-complaints by the accused alleging blackmail does not automatically discredit the prosecutrix’s allegations of sexual assault and threats. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in connection with FIR No. 807/2022 registered for offences

9. Aman Gupta vs State on 06 September, 2023

   High Court of Delhi6 Sept 2023

   Case Name: Aman Gupta vs State on 06 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 06 September, 2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal Subject: Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – GST Evasion – Abuse of Process of Court Key Legal Propositions 1. Repeated applications for anticipatory/surrender bail after dismissal or withdrawal, coupled with attempts to use interim protection for settlement negotiations without genuine intent, constitute abuse of the process of court. 2. Custodial interrogation is crucial in cases involving economic offences like GST evasion, particularly to recover proceeds of crime, confront the accused with evidence, and unravel larger conspiracies. 3. Serious offences involving forgery and GST evasion through fake invoices pose a threat to the economy and warrant stringent consideration when deciding anticipatory bail applications. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner, Aman Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 515/2022 registered under Sections 420/467/468/471/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging that the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, induced the com

10. Amit Katyal vs Directorate of Enforcement on 22 November, 2023

    High Court of Delhi22 Nov 2023

    Case Name: Amit Katyal vs Directorate of Enforcement on 22 November, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 22.11.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Writ Petition; PMLA; Summons; Quashing of ECIR; Anticipatory Bail Key Legal Propositions 1. A person who is not named as an accused in an ECIR may not have locus to seek its quashing. 2. Issuance of summons under Section 50 of PMLA does not necessarily indicate an intention to arrest, and courts should be cautious about issuing ‘no coercive steps’ directions in such cases. 3. The offence of money laundering is independent and does not require the accused to be named in the predicate offence, but a final discharge/acquittal in the predicate offence would preclude a money laundering charge. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner challenged a summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 50 of PMLA, seeking its quashing and a direction not to take coercive action. The petitioner argued that he was a witness in the predicate offence investigated by the CBI and thus, could not be an accused in the PMLA case. He also sought a direction against coercive action, fearing ar

11. Vikram Kathuriya vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr on 26 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi26 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Vikram Kathuriya vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr on 26 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 26 September, 2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail – Allegations of Sexual Relations under False Pretext, Cheating, and Threatening Key Legal Propositions 1. The grant of anticipatory bail is contingent upon a consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the stage of investigation and the need for custodial interrogation. 2. Discrepancies in evidence regarding disclosure of prior marital status and the authenticity of documents are matters to be determined during trial. 3. The existence of a Memorandum of Understanding and the complainant’s knowledge of the applicant’s previous marriage are factual issues to be decided at trial. Judgment Summary Background: The present application seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 376/377/328/506 IPC. The complainant alleges that the applicant engaged in sexual relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, concealed his prior marriage and child, and subsequently threatened her

12. Aslam Sayyed vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi15 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Aslam Sayyed vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 15 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 15.09.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail – Offences under Sections 419/420/34 of IPC, Section 66 of IT Act, and Cr.P.C. Section 438 Key Legal Propositions 1. Anticipatory bail can be denied when the investigation is at an initial stage and material suggests financial irregularities. 2. Custodial interrogation may be necessary to ascertain details of transactions where the applicant is suspected of illegal activities under the guise of legitimate business. 3. The number of victims and the scale of the alleged fraud are relevant considerations in deciding anticipatory bail applications. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 419/420/34 of the IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act. The allegations involve a firm, S.M. Global, luring investors with promises of high returns and subsequently defrauding them. The applicant is a Director of M/s. GAK Exchange Pvt. Ltd., which allegedly exchanged funds

13. Ritu Palgotra vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 18 September, 2023

    High Court of Delhi18 Sept 2023

    Case Name: Ritu Palgotra vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi on 18 September, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 18 September, 2023 Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail, Property Dispute, Forgery, Criminal Procedure Key Legal Propositions 1. A dispute regarding property ownership and alleged forgery of documents is best adjudicated by a civil court, and a detailed inquiry into these matters is not appropriate during anticipatory bail proceedings. 2. Family disputes, particularly those involving inheritance and property, require a nuanced approach, and the background of the parties should be considered. 3. Directing an accused to cooperate with the investigation and granting bail subject to conditions is a viable course of action when the allegations are disputed and a trial is pending. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is a petition for anticipatory bail filed by Ritu Palgotra, accused of offences punishable under Sections 406/468/471/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in connection with FIR No. 147/2023 registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by Anita Palgotra, alleging

14. Sunil Jha vs State on 19 January, 2023

    High Court of Delhi19 Jan 2023

    Case Name: Sunil Jha vs State on 19 January, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 19 January, 2023 Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Anticipatory Bail Key Legal Propositions 1. The principle of ‘bail and not jail’ should be enforced, as denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty. 2. Anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 CrPC have a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 3. Section 438 CrPC should be read liberally, and courts should not impose limitations not explicitly provided by the legislature. Judgment Summary Background: This is an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in a case FIR registered under Sections 376/328 IPC. The charge sheet has been filed, and the petitioner is already appearing before the Trial Court. Interim protection was previously granted and not misused. Held: A. On Anticipatory Bail after Filing of Charge Sheet: Majority View: The Court held that even after the filing of the charge sheet, the High Court can grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in *Bharat Chaudhar

15. Babita Arya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 17 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi17 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Babita Arya vs State of NCT of Delhi on 17 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 17.08.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Offences under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B IPC – Consideration of undertaking to deposit funds – Distinguishing precedent. Key Legal Propositions 1. The Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail where the allegations involve inducing a complainant to take loans and part with money based on false pretenses, and subsequently selling the same property to multiple parties. 2. A previous undertaking to deposit funds as a condition for interim protection does not automatically preclude the Court from refusing anticipatory bail on merits, but is a relevant factor. 3. The facts of a case involving multiple instances of cheating and forgery are distinct from those considered in *Ramesh Kumar vs. The State of NCT of Delhi* (2023 SCC OnLine SC 766), and warrant a different outcome. Judgment Summary Background: The present applications are filed under Section 438 and 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 106/2018 registered for offences under

16. Mohd Salauddin vs State on 11 August, 2023

    High Court of Delhi11 Aug 2023

    Case Name: Mohd Salauddin vs State on 11 August, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 11.08.2023 Bench: Ms. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Forgery – Investigation Key Legal Propositions 1. Grant of anticipatory bail requires balancing individual liberty with the need for a fair and free investigation, particularly in cases involving serious offences like forgery. 2. Custodial interrogation is necessary when the accused needs to be confronted with documents and witnesses, and the allegations involve forgery and misleading investigation. 3. A protective umbrella of pre-arrest bail can render the investigation ineffective, especially when uncovering the truth requires thorough questioning of the accused and other suspects. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered for offences punishable under Sections 420/468/471/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint alleging that the applicant mortgaged a property using forged documents and subsequently sold it to the compla

17. GAGAN KHOKHA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 03 February, 2023

    High Court of Delhi3 Feb 2023

    Case Name: GAGAN KHOKHA vs STATE NCT OF DELHI on 03 February, 2023 Court: HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Judgment: 03 February, 2023 Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Sections 323/342/376/354/450/454/506/509/34 IPC – Allegations of sexual assault, harassment, and threats. Key Legal Propositions 1. Where the investigation in a case is complete, chargesheet filed, and trial underway, no useful purpose is served by sending the applicant to judicial custody. 2. Anticipatory bail can be granted even if the allegations are serious, considering factors like completion of investigation, ongoing trial, and lack of requirement for further custodial interrogation. 3. Apprehensions regarding witness safety can be addressed through appropriate mechanisms like approaching the Witness Protection Committee. Judgment Summary Background: The present application is filed under Section 438 of the CrPC seeking anticipatory bail for the petitioner, Gagan Khokha, in connection with FIR No. 210/2020 registered under Sections 323/342/376/354/450/454/506/509/34 of the IPC. The allegations involve harassment, threats, illegal trespass, and atte

18. Dhankesh Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi on 24 July, 2023

    High Court of Delhi24 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Dhankesh Yadav vs State of NCT of Delhi on 24 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 24.07.2023 Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Sections 420/406/120B IPC – Multiple Agreements for Sale – Investigation Required Key Legal Propositions 1. The principle of “bail not jail” is a basic tenet of criminal jurisprudence, but anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC is an exceptional power to be exercised sparingly. 2. When considering anticipatory bail, courts must balance the need to ensure a free and fair investigation with the prevention of harassment and unjustified detention of the accused. 3. Factors to be considered while granting anticipatory bail include the nature of the accusation, antecedents of the applicant, possibility of flight risk, potential for tampering with evidence, and genuineness of the prosecution. Judgment Summary Background: The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 122/2023 registered under Sections 420/406/120B IPC, alleging a fraudulent transaction related to the sale of a property. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner, along with a co-acc

19. MS. B vs STATE ON NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 21 July, 2023

    High Court of Delhi21 Jul 2023

    Case Name: MS. B vs STATE ON NCT OF DELHI AND ANR on 21 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: 21 July, 2023 Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Power of High Court – Prior Notice Before Arrest Key Legal Propositions 1. The High Court possesses inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pass orders securing the ends of justice, even beyond specific statutory provisions. 2. Granting a period of prior notice before arrest, while not explicitly provided for in Section 438 Cr.P.C., is permissible under the High Court’s inherent powers, particularly in exceptional circumstances. 3. Once a chargesheet has been filed, custodial interrogation may be deemed fruitless, especially concerning allegations of dowry articles under Section 406 IPC. Judgment Summary Background: The petition challenges an order passed by the ASJ directing a seven-day prior notice before arrest in a case registered under Sections 498A/406 r/w 34 IPC, along with subsequently added Sections 354 and 509 IPC. The petitioner argued that such directions are contrary to law, citing *Union of India vs. Padan Narain Aggarwal*. Held: A. On

20. Mohd Furqan Sheikh vs State of NCT of Delhi on 21 July, 2023

    High Court of Delhi21 Jul 2023

    Case Name: Mohd Furqan Sheikh vs State of NCT of Delhi on 21 July, 2023 Court: High Court of Delhi Date of Judgment: July 21, 2023 Bench: Justice Saurabh Banerjee Subject: Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Habitual Offender – Section 438 CrPC – Theft Key Legal Propositions 1. The Court must consider both the personal liberty of the accused and the nature of the offences, the charges levelled, and the potential threat to society when deciding on anticipatory bail. 2. Involvement in multiple FIRs for similar offences over a period of time can lead to the conclusion that the applicant is a habitual offender. 3. A court is not obligated to consider arguments disputing evidence presented in a Status Report if raised for the first time after the judgment is reserved. Judgment Summary Background: The applicant, Mohd Furqan Sheikh, sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in connection with FIR No. 8028/2023, registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicant was not named in the FIR but was mentioned in the disclosure statement of a co-accused. The State submitted that the applicant was involved in 10 other FIRs und