SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

SRIKANT UPADHYAY & ORS versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.

In the absence of any interim order granting protection, the pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not prevent the Trial Court from issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. or initiating proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C.; filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate is not equivalent to personal appearance for purposes of Sections 82/83; given the appellants' consistent non-appearance and conduct, they were not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Parties
Appellants: Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.; Respondents: State of Bihar & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal No.1552 of 2024 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 04.04.2023 in CRLM No.67668 of 2022 Dismissing Anticipatory Bail Application
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Anticipatory Bail, Pre Arrest Bail, Section 82 Cr.p.c. Proclamation, Section 83 Cr.p.c. Process, Non Bailable Warrant, Adjournment of Bail Application, Interim Order
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Anticipatory Bail Pre Arrest Bail Section 82 Cr.p.c. Proclamation Section 83 Cr.p.c. Process Non Bailable Warrant Adjournment of Bail Application +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Srikant Upadhyay & Ors.

Appellants

State of Bihar & Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal No.1552 of 2024 / Appeal Against High Court Order Dated 04.04.2023 in CRLM No.67668 of 2022 Dismissing Anticipatory Bail Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pendency of an anticipatory bail application without interim protection bars the Trial Court from issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and proceeding under Section 83 Cr.P.C.
  2. 2 Whether filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate constitutes appearance for purposes of proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C.
  3. 3 Whether appellants were entitled to pre-arrest/anticipatory bail given their non-appearance and conduct in the trial court proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of any interim order granting protection, the pendency of an anticipatory bail application does not prevent the Trial Court from issuing a proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. or initiating proceedings under Section 83 Cr.P.C.; filing an anticipatory bail application through an advocate is not equivalent to personal appearance for purposes of Sections 82/83; given the appellants' consistent non-appearance and conduct, they were not entitled to pre-arrest bail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court order dated 04.04.2023 in CRLM No.67668 of 2022 dismissing the anticipatory bail application is upheld