Moti Lal Vs. State - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
a) the case dealt with a petition filed under section 438 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail - the accused was charged under section 50 of the wild life (protection) act and the investigation was still under progress - thereforee, it was ruled that the accused would not be grated bail, as grant of bail would prejudice investigationb) in the instant case, it was ruled that it was not proper on the part of session judge to dispose off the application filed under section 438 of the criminal procedure code, 1973, by a non-speaking order - - (4) admittedly, the investigation is still not complete and during argument sit was strenuously contended on behalf of the state that the petitioner had made himself scarce and despite repeated efforts to contact him he failed to respond.jaspal singh, j.(1) on an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned additional sessions judge passed the following order: 'heard:considering the facts and circumstances of the case no ground for anticipatory bail. hence dismissed.'the order has left the petitioner dissatisfied and .this court unhappy. (2) section 438 of the code of criminal procedure is a salutary provision enshring the intention of the legislature that liberty of the subject is not put in jeopardy on frivolous grounds. the provision is thus no plaything inviting casual handling or perfunctory treatment. it is a solemn provision which mandates due judicial care and circumspection without being taken in by equivocatory quibblings. in dealing with it no lexical dexterity is needed. even the truth, veracity and effect of the evidence is not to be meticulously judged. what, however, is expected is a speaking order furnishing salient features of the case, and the factors which weighed with the court while finally making up its mind. this would be a guarantee against arbitrariness. unfortunately the order in question is wanting in that respect and this leaves us groping in the dark.(3) the case registered against the petitioner is under section 50 of the wild life act. the prosecution alleges that three skins of leopard cubs, two skins of wild deer and one more skin which appeared to be of a wild animal were recovered from a room in possession of the petitioner.(4) admittedly, the investigation is still not complete and during argument sit was strenuously contended on behalf of the state that the petitioner had made himself scarce and despite repeated efforts to contact him he failed to respond. it was further argued that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would greatly prejudice investigation.(5) should the petitioner be enlarged on anticipatory bail? i do feel that the alleged recovery and the fact that investigation is not yet over cannot be lost sightof. the quantity of skins recovered points towards a sinister game. the charge, to my mind, is too serious and i do believe that grant of anticipatory bail at this stage would not be in the interest of public and the state. consequently the petition is dismissed.