Tags:
Journalism of Courage
In a strongly worded opinion, Justice Markandeya Katju of the Supreme Court has made a recommendation to the UP Government asking it to bring in an Ordinance immediately for bringing back anticipatory bail provision in the state.
The Judge has also directed all states/UTs to 8220;strictly comply8221; with an earlier ruling of the apex court, which stipulates that no arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. Referring to a landmark judgment of 1994 Joginder Kumar vs state of UP, the judge asserted how behind arrest and detention, there has to be a 8220;reasonable justification8221; reached after some investigation as to genuineness of a complaint.
Failing to understand why such a provision does not exist in UP while it exists in other states, the Judge said, 8220;Because of the absence of the provision for anticipatory bail, how thousands of thousands of writ petitions and applications under Section 482 are being filed every year in the Allahabad High Court praying for stay of the petitioner8217;s arrest and/or quashing the FIR. 8221;
8220;This is unnecessarily increasing the work load of the high court and adding to the arrears, apart from causing hardship to the public and overcrowding in jails,8221; he said. Deploring that several innocent persons cannot get anticipatory bail even though the FIR against them are frivolous or false, the Judge said, 8220;In my opinion, the problem will be obviated by restoring the provision for anticipatory bail.8221;
The suggestion came as he disagreed with his fellow judge Justice H K Sema in a case where the MD of a multinational firm had approached the court, challenging high court8217;s decision rejecting his plea for quashing criminal proceedings against him under the Karnataka Shops and Establishments Act, 1961.
Unlike Justice Sema, who felt power under Section 482 CrPC is to be used sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases, Justice Katju opined the expression 8220;rarest of rare cases8221; cannot be extended to a petition under Section 482 CrPC. He agreed that though the Section should be used 8220;sparingly8221;, there might be occasions where in the interest of justice the power should be exercised.
Citing a 1994 ruling, the judge noted how false FIRs are filed often under the Dowry Prohibition Act implicating aged grandmothers, uncles, aunts, unmarried sisters who may have to go to jail, even though they might have nothing to do with the offence. Holding it as a violation of the 1994 ruling, the Judge concluded, 8220;The difficulty can be overcome by restoring the provision for anticipatory bail.8221;
