Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra

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." 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.

15. In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [(2005) 4 SCC 303] this Court considered the scope of Section 438 of the Code as under: (SCC pp. 311-12, para 16) "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 4 NABAIL No. 7250 of 2025 arrested for whichever 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 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."

16. Recently, in Lavesh v. 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-a-vis 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: (SCC p. 733) the accused “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 '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.”

7. हाल ही में, माननीय सवोर्च्च न्यायालय ने Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra) और साथ ही Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) के फै सले पर िवश्वास 5 NABAIL No. 7250 of 2025 करते हुए Prem Shanker Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and another reported in 2022 (14) SCC 516 में िनणीर्त िकए गए एक अन्य मामले में माना है िक यिद िकसी को धारा 82 सी.आर.पी.सी. के तहत फरार/घोिषत अपराधी घोिषत िकया जाता है, तो वह व्यावसाियक लेनदेन के मामलों में भी अिग्रम जमानत की राहत का हकदार नहीं है, यहां तक िक भा.दं.सं. के तहत आरोिपत अपराध भी हो सकते हैं, िवशेष रूप से धारा 406, 420, 467, 468 आिद पर िवचार करने की आवश्यकता है, िजस बात पर िवचार िकया जाना आवश्यक है वह आरोप और अिभयोग की प्रकृ ित है, न िक िकसी व्यावसाियक लेनदेन से उत्पन्न होने वाले आरोप की प्रकृ ित।

8. वतर्मान मामले में अिग्रम जमानत संबंधी िविध के स्थािपत िसद्धांतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए और पक्षकारों के िवद्वान अिधवक्ताओं के कथनों, आरोपों की प्रकृ ित, आवेदकगण की भूिमका और मामले के सभी तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रथमदृष्टया यह स्पष्ट है िक आवेदकगण के िवरुद्ध अपराध के संबंध में िविशष्ट आरोप लगाए गए हैं और आरोपी आवेदकगण आज तक फरार हैं, िजनके िवरुद्ध गैर जमानतीय अिधपत्र एवं सीआरपीसी की धारा 82 एवं 83 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगर्त उद्घोषणा भी जारी की गई है। आवेदकगण को अिग्रम जमानत पर अवमुक्त िकये जाने का कोई उिचत आधार पिरलिक्षत नहीं हो रहा है, अतः मामले के गुण-दोष पर िबना कोई िवचार व्यक्त िकए यह अिग्रम जमानत आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार िकए जाने योग्य नहीं है, तद्नुसार आवेदकगण का अिग्रम जमानत आवेदन पत्र अस्वीकार िकया जाता है।

9. उपरोक्तानुसार वाद के गुण-दोष पर िटप्पणी िकये बगैर यह अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्नापत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है।

10. कायार्लय को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक इस आदेश की एक प्रितिलिप अिवलम्ब संबंिधत िवचारण न्यायालय के भेजना सुिनिश्चत करें।

11. आवेदकगण सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष िनयिमत जमानत प्राथर्नापत्र दािखल करने हेतु स्वतंत्र हैं। September 15, 2025 Pawan Kumar (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

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." 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.

15. In Adri Dharan Das v. State of W.B. [(2005) 4 SCC 303] this Court considered the scope of Section 438 of the Code as under: (SCC pp. 311-12, para 16) "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 4 NABAIL No. 7250 of 2025 arrested for whichever 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 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."

16. Recently, in Lavesh v. 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-a-vis 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: (SCC p. 733) the accused “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 '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.”

7. हाल ही में, माननीय सवोर्च्च न्यायालय ने Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pradeep Sharma (supra) और साथ ही Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) के फै सले पर िवश्वास 5 NABAIL No. 7250 of 2025 करते हुए Prem Shanker Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar and another reported in 2022 (14) SCC 516 में िनणीर्त िकए गए एक अन्य मामले में माना है िक यिद िकसी को धारा 82 सी.आर.पी.सी. के तहत फरार/घोिषत अपराधी घोिषत िकया जाता है, तो वह व्यावसाियक लेनदेन के मामलों में भी अिग्रम जमानत की राहत का हकदार नहीं है, यहां तक िक भा.दं.सं. के तहत आरोिपत अपराध भी हो सकते हैं, िवशेष रूप से धारा 406, 420, 467, 468 आिद पर िवचार करने की आवश्यकता है, िजस बात पर िवचार िकया जाना आवश्यक है वह आरोप और अिभयोग की प्रकृ ित है, न िक िकसी व्यावसाियक लेनदेन से उत्पन्न होने वाले आरोप की प्रकृ ित।

8. वतर्मान मामले में अिग्रम जमानत संबंधी िविध के स्थािपत िसद्धांतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए और पक्षकारों के िवद्वान अिधवक्ताओं के कथनों, आरोपों की प्रकृ ित, आवेदकगण की भूिमका और मामले के सभी तथ्यों एवं पिरिस्थितयों को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रथमदृष्टया यह स्पष्ट है िक आवेदकगण के िवरुद्ध अपराध के संबंध में िविशष्ट आरोप लगाए गए हैं और आरोपी आवेदकगण आज तक फरार हैं, िजनके िवरुद्ध गैर जमानतीय अिधपत्र एवं सीआरपीसी की धारा 82 एवं 83 दं०प्र०सं० के अंतगर्त उद्घोषणा भी जारी की गई है। आवेदकगण को अिग्रम जमानत पर अवमुक्त िकये जाने का कोई उिचत आधार पिरलिक्षत नहीं हो रहा है, अतः मामले के गुण-दोष पर िबना कोई िवचार व्यक्त िकए यह अिग्रम जमानत आवेदन पत्र स्वीकार िकए जाने योग्य नहीं है, तद्नुसार आवेदकगण का अिग्रम जमानत आवेदन पत्र अस्वीकार िकया जाता है।

9. उपरोक्तानुसार वाद के गुण-दोष पर िटप्पणी िकये बगैर यह अिग्रम जमानत प्राथर्नापत्र िनरस्त िकया जाता है।

10. कायार्लय को िनदेर्िशत िकया जाता है िक इस आदेश की एक प्रितिलिप अिवलम्ब संबंिधत िवचारण न्यायालय के भेजना सुिनिश्चत करें।

11. आवेदकगण सक्षम न्यायालय के समक्ष िनयिमत जमानत प्राथर्नापत्र दािखल करने हेतु स्वतंत्र हैं। September 15, 2025 Pawan Kumar (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)