New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the pendency of the anticipatory bail application does not prevent the trial court from proceeding with steps to issue public notices and order attachment of properties of the fugitive accused.

The Supreme Court, while holding that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an “extraordinary power”, observed that although bail is held to be a rule in many cases, it cannot be said that “anticipatory bail is the rule”.

A bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar said the question of whether to grant anticipatory bail should be decided at the prudent and judicious discretion of the court based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

“While exercising the aforesaid powers, the concerned courts must be extremely cautious as provision of interim protection or protection to accused persons with serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hinder investigation to a great extent as it sometimes results in evidence being tampered with or distracting,” the judge said in his decision.

The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on an appeal against an order of the Patna High Court dismissing the appellants’ pleas for alleged offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Human Rights Violation Act. Bail application. Practical Law of Witches (Daain), 1999.

The bench said: “We should not be construed as holding that the court should not pass interim protection before considering such an application as the provision is intended to protect the liberty of a person from unreasonable arrest and we say that such an order should be passed in eminently suitable circumstances ”

It said the applicant was not entitled to invoke special powers when a warrant or public notice was issued.

“This, of course, does not take away the power of the court to grant pre-arrest bail in the interest of justice in extreme and exceptional circumstances. However, a person who continues to disobey orders and absconds is not entitled to such bail,” the bench said.

“In other words, it is clarified that pendency of anticipatory bail application in the absence of any interim order shall not prevent the trial court from issuing/continuing steps for declaration and taking steps under Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Law ,”it says.

Section 83 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) deals with seizure of property of a fugitive accused.

“We have held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. Although in many cases it is believed that bail is a rule, anticipatory bail cannot in any case be said to be a rule,” the bench said. said.

The Supreme Court, while referring to the facts of the case, said that these facts showed that the appellant had been consistently disobedient to the orders of the trial court.

While dismissing their appeal, it said the conduct of the appellants did not entitle them to seek pre-arrest bail.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)