The Uttarakhand High Court has recommended the State Government to restore the provision for anticipatory bail in the State..The recommendation was made by Justice Lok Pal Singh while hearing a writ petition seeking a direction to quash an FIR registered against the Petitioner..“This Court, therefore, make a suggestion/recommendation to the Uttarakhand Government to issue an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976 and empowering the High Court as well as the Sessions Courts to grant anticipatory bail. 21. The Registrar General of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary (Home) and Principal Secretary (Law-cum-L.R.) Government of Uttarakhand forthwith, who in turn are requested to urgently place the matter before Hon’ble the Chief Minister, State of Uttarakhand, to do the needful for issuing the ordinance as suggested above.”, the Court stated..The Court acknowledged that the provision for anticipatory bail, Section 438, was incorporated in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to safeguard people from “false and frivolous cases”..“Often false First Information Reports are filed e.g. under Section 498-A IPC, Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, etc. and grand-mothers, uncles, aunts, unmarried sisters etc. and sometimes even the mediator of the marriage, are implicated in such cases, even though they may have nothing to do with the offence. Some times unmarried girls have to go to jail, which may affect their chances of marriage.”, it remarked..The Court also noted how the provision came to be omitted from the statute book in Uttarakhand. State of Uttar Pradesh by way of enactment of Act No. 16 of 1976 had omitted Section 438 of CrPC. In view of the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 the law applicable on the appointed day in the State of UP was made applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, the provisions of Section 9 of Act No. 16 of 1976, omitting the provisions of Section 438 of CrPC were made applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, with the result that the provision for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest came to be non-existent in the State of Uttarakhand..Stating that the “the reputation of a person is valuable asset for him, just as in law the goodwill of a firm is an intangible asset“, the Court remarked that,.“Even if such person subsequently obtains bail, his/her reputation may be irreparably tarnished.“.The Court further observed that due to the absence of a provision for anticipatory bail in the State, its jurisdiction under Article 226 was being invoked for quashing of FIR and seeking interim protection in respect of cognizable offences, having imprisonment of less than 7 years. This practice, the Court observed, “is increasing day-by-day”..It further took notice of the ordeal that a person named in a frivolous and false FIR has to go through before securing a bail..“Even if the First Information Report is false and frivolous, a person has to go to jail and has to obtain bail, and for that he/she has to first surrender before the learned Magistrate, and his/her bail application is heard only after several days (usually a week or two) after giving notice to the State.“.During this period, the person named in the FIR has to go to jail, the Court further observed. Quoting a verse from Bhagwad Gita, Justice Singh said,.“For a self-respecting man, infamy is worse than death. This difficulty can be overcome by restoring the provision for anticipatory bail.”.The Court, therefore, stated that there must be a provision for anticipatory bail in the State of Uttarakhand. Thus, it proceeded to make a suggestion/ recommendation to the Uttarakhand Government to issue an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of UP Act No. 16 of 1976 and empowering the High Court as well as the Sessions Courts to grant anticipatory bail..Deputy Advocate General Sandeep Tandon along with Additional Government Advocate Manisha Rana Singh appeared for the State Government..Advocate Sanjeev Singh appeared for the Petitioner..Read the order:
