Call Now 9990786823
Anticipatory Bail Application Cannot Be Entertained In Cases Where Offence Is Punishable By Death; UP Amendment Of CrPC Prohibits It: Allahabad HC | Call 9990786823 for Assistance
Jitendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P
Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. - 144 of 2024
FACTS: An appeal filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in Uttar Pradesh, where the applicant, Jitendra Pratap Singh, sought anticipatory bail. This appeal arose due to conflicting judgments within the Allahabad High Court concerning Section 438(6)(b) CrPC, which bars anticipatory bail for offenses punishable by death. The applicant argued that anticipatory bail should be allowed unless there was a clear case warranting the death penalty, while the state opposed this view, maintaining the provision’s absolute nature. ISSUE: The main question referred to the larger bench was whether Section 438(6)(b) CrPC in Uttar Pradesh imposed an absolute bar on anticipatory bail for offenses punishable by death, or if
discretion could be exercised based on the facts of each case. OBSERVATIONS: The court noted that the wording of Section 438(6)(b) CrPC is unambiguous and leaves no room for judicial discretion. The court reviewed prior rulings, including Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra and Prithvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, where discretion in anticipatory bail was allowed under special circumstances in other statutory contexts. However, it found these cases non-applicable, given the unique legislative intent of Section 438 CrPC in Uttar Pradesh. The court emphasized that any hardship caused by strict application is a matter for legislative amendment, not judicial reinterpretation. RATIO: The court concluded that Section 438(6)(b) CrPC, as amended for Uttar Pradesh, imposes an absolute bar on anticipatory bail for offenses carrying the death penalty. It clarified
that judicial discretion cannot override this legislative mandate. However, interim protections could still be considered under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution if the allegations lack a prima facie basis. The court answered the reference in the negative, upholding
the prohibition on anticipatory bail in such cases