The Court reasoned further that when serious offences are disclosed and the involvement of an accused is prima facie established, the Courts should be slow to grant anticipatory bail.
In this case, the Court found that prima facie, the accused had played an active role in the alleged crime, which was executed in a very planned and methodical manner. The judge commented that it was not only an offence against an individual but that it affected larger societal interests.
The object of anticipatory bail, the bench went on to point out, is that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of a complainant.
“However, in the present case, no any such sort of allegation or bias is found out. It is needless to say that order under Section 438 of CrPC is not a passport to the commission of offence nor a shield against any serious accusation, which adversely affects the society,” the bench found.
Source: Barandbench
