Impermissible To Apply For Bail In Parts, Accused Must Seek Bail In All Offences For Which He Is Wanted: Allahabad High Court

“No person can be permitted to apply for bail in part, that too firstly getting bail by invoking powers u/s 437 CrPC and later on taking recourse to Section 438 CrPC in the other sections. He has to apply for bail in all the sections he is wanted either u/s 437 CrPC or 438 CrPC,” the bench of Justice Krishan Pahal said.

The bench held thus while dealing with the anticipatory bail plea filed by two applicants under Sections 392 and 452 IPC.

The case in brief

Essentially, both the applicants were summoned by the court concerned under Section 319 CrPC in the present case to face charges under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 452 and 392 IPC.

In view of this, earlier, both the applicants applied for bail under Sections 323, 325, 504 and 506 IPC only and were enlarged on bail by the Magistrate concerned in January 2022.

Now, since they did not have a bail order in their favour for offences under sections 452 and 392 IPC in the case, therefore, they moved the instant plea for anticipatory bail to get relief in the added sections.

Taking note of the circumstances under which the applicants approached the Court, AGA and the informant in person opposed their pre-arrest bail plea on the ground that they can't be permitted to apply for bail in parts, meaning thereby that they first apply for bail before the Magistrate by invoking Section 437 CrPC (for sections 323, 504, 506, 325) and then apply for anticipatory bail in the HC under Section 438 CrPC for the rest of the sections (Sections 392 and 452 IPC) and that too, in the same case.

It was their contention that it was a misuse of the process of the court and that either the applicants should have applied under Sections 438 CrPC before the Sessions Court or should have applied under all the sections in the Court of the Magistrate concerned.

Court's observations

In view of these submissions, the Court found force in the arguments advanced by the informant in-person and AGA as it observed that the Magistrate was competent to hear and dispose of the bail under Sections 392 and 452 IPC and hence, they should have sought bail under those sections by invoking Section 437 CrPC.

“The said act at the part of the applicants and Magistrate concerned and even the Public Prosecutor was clearly not proper. The applicants have certainly not come with clean hands… The accused was summoned under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 452 and 392 I.PC. and should have applied for bail in all the sections,” the Court added.

In view of this, the Court refused to grant them anticipatory bail and rejected their bail plea.

Appearances

Counsel for Applicant: Pramod Kumar Singh, Praveen Chandra Mishra

Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Gaurav Sharma

Case title - Urmila Devi And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another [CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 3552 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 159

Click Here To Read/Download Order