Nature & Gravity Of Offence Taken Into Account While Considering Anticipatory Bail: Rajasthan High Court Denies Relief For Forging Pattas
Live LawRajasthan High Court has denied anticipatory bail to the person charged under five different FIRs for forging “pattas” that were never actually issued by the Ajmer Development Authority and taking lakhs of rupees from complainants to distribute these fabricated pattas and documents. A bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said, “While considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, no doubt, the Court has to take into consideration the personal liberty of the accused as a relevant factor, however, at the same time it is the duty of the Court to take into account the nature of the offences involved and the charges levelled against the persons alleged.” Counsel for the applicant argued for the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that during his period of incarceration entire investigation was done by the police. Similar observations were made in Nimmagadda Prasad v CBI wherein it was held that the Court should keep in mind the nature of evidence and accusation while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. Similar observation was made in Nimmagadda Prasad v CBI: “It has also to be kept in mind that for the purpose of granting bail, the Legislature has used the words "reasonable grounds for believing" instead of "the evidence" which means the Court dealing with the grant of bail can only satisfy it as to whether there is a genuine case against the accused and that the prosecution will be able to produce prima facie evidence in support of the charge.