Sameer Narayanrao Paltewar v. State of Maharashtra

The Cyber Blog IndiaCase Summary

Presence of an applicant in the final hearing of their anticipatory bail application

Sameer Narayanrao Paltewar v. State of Maharashtra
In the High Court of Bombay
Crl. App. (Appeal) 393/2021
Before Justice Manish Pitale
Decided on August 21, 2021

Relevancy of the Case: Presence of an applicant in the final hearing of their anticipatory bail application

Statutes and Provisions Involved

  • The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66C)
  • The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471)
  • The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 438)

Relevant Facts of the Case

  • The complainant and the applicant are directors of a company operating a super speciality hospital in Nagpur. The complainant lodged a criminal complaint due to disputes against the applicant for offences in the relevant provisions.
  • The applicant filed an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. Thereafter, the court granted ad-interim protection and ordered the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.
  • The complainant later sought a direction for the applicant’s personal presence at the time of the final hearing of the anticipatory bail application. Similarly, the Investigating Officer and the Prosecutor moved applications for the applicant’s presence in the court.
  • Aggrieved by the same, the applicant has filed this application.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

  • The applicant’s counsel submitted that the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 is exercised concurrently by the Sessions Court and this Court.
  • The counsel submitted that through Section 438(4), there is a situation where the Court directs the presence of the accused in the Court. Unless there is an order granting interim protection from arrest to the applicant, there is every possibility of the applicant being arrested on his presence in the Court. This will frustrate the applicant’s right under Section 438.
  • Further, he submitted that in the case of an immediate arrest, unless interim protection is extended, the accused cannot approach the High Court.
  • The respondent’s counsel submitted that the apprehension of the applicant is unjustified.

Opinion of the Bench

  • The presence of the accused in court at the final hearing of bail application risks the arrest of the accused. Also, he will be unable to approach the High Court.
  • Several judgements by this court have affirmed the need for interim protection if an accused is present in court for their final hearing of bail application in a Sessions Court.

Final Decision

  • The bench quashed and set aside the impugned order.

Julia Anna Joseph, an undergraduate student at Christ (Deemed to be University), prepared this case summary during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2022.