S.B. CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 6784/2008 ABHISHEK TEKCHANDANI VS. STATE OF RAJ. 14.10.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI, Mr. Shantanu Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr. Jinendra Jain, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory Bail in the offences under Section 143, 149 and 307 of IPC and pertaining to F.I.R. No. 486/2008 of Police Station Vigyan Nagar, Kota. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the relevant material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the commission of offence. None sustained any injury which makes the whole FIR doubtful. There being no evidence against the petitioner, he deserves to be released on pre-arrest bail. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition on the ground that it was the petitioner Abhishek alias Abbu was armed 2 with a revolver and it was he and Sandeep Daswani who called the complainant and his brother. It is alleged that the petitioner aimed the revolver on the complainant and fire but somehow he narrowly escaped. In view of this position, the petitioner does not deserve any bail and his petition may be dismissed. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the contents of FIR and relevant material, it is noticed that the petitioner was armed with a revolver who fired at the complainant but somehow he escaped. The Hon'ble Apex Court in one case reported by Dhananjay Mahapatra, TNN in times of India indiatimes.com has observed with regard to Pre Arrest bail as under:- The Pre Arrest bail provision in the Criminal Procedure Code, inserted to save the innocent from harassment at the hands of Police, is the most abused provision today. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's anguish stemmed from the fact that a discretionary power of the High Courts and Sessions Courts was being repeatedly invoked by persons accused of heinous offences which was not the intent of the relief giving provision. Exasperated by the large number of pre-arrest bail applications flooding in the 3 High Courts and even in the Supreme Court, a Vacation Division Bench comprising of Justice Arijit Pasayat and Justice PP Naolekar said that now rapists, triple murder accused and most corrupt have started seeking anticipatory bail making the provision one of the most abused sections of the Cr.P.C. Recently on 10th October 2008 the Hon'ble Apex Court yet in another case (reported on news.yahoo.com) observed that: “A blanket order of bail may amount or result in an invitation to commit an offence or a passport to carry on criminal activities or to afford a shield against any and all types of illegal operations, which, in our judgment can never be allowed in a society governed by rule of law.” In the case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibba vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 S.C. 1632) the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: “Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute complels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under Section 438 (1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible 4 conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious inference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vaccum. In the case of Pankaj Vs. State of Raj., (RLW 1996(1) Raj., 628) this Court has observed that the provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C., seeking Pre arrest bail sparingly used in rarest of the rare cases. Allegation of false implication and malafides must be made and proved by the accused. This provision 5 can be invoked by the Court only when the accusation levelled against the petitioner is found to be totally false, baseless and groundless. In the present case, the accusation against the petitioner does not seem to be false and groundless. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner cannot be allowed pre-arrest bail and his bail petition deserves to be dismissed. In the result, the anticipatory bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner Abhishek Tekchandani son of Shri Govind Tekchandani, by caste Sindhi, resident of 1-A- 4, S.F.S. Talwandi, Kota, police station Vigyan Nagar Kota, under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed accordingly. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. PCG