Notification
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
    • Supreme Court
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
  • Quick Recall
    • Arms Act
    • BNSS
    • BNS
    • BSA
    • Evidence
    • Drugs Act
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
    • Pocso
    • MCOP
    • Writ
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • 3 judge bench
  • Resources
    • Notes
      • Cr.P.C 1973
      • Crimes
    • Articles
      • P.G.Rajagopal
      • AD. RAMPRAKASH RAJAGOPAL
      • Ad. Karunanithi
      • Ad. Ravindran Raghunathan
      • James Raja
      • M.S.Parthiban
      • Rajavel
    • Digest
      • Monthly Digest
      • Weekly digest
      • Subject wise
    • Bare Acts
      • BSA 2023
      • BNS 2023
      • BNSS 2023
  • Must Read
  • Author’s note
  • Legal words
  • Civil
    • s. 91 cpc
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • My Bookmarks
Reading: S. 303(2) BNS: Anticipatory Bail was filed for a bailable offence however the  Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR
Share
Font ResizerAa
  • Latest
  • Acquittal
  • Digest
  • Resources
Search
  • Latest
    • Madras High Court
    • Madurai Bench
    • Supreme Court
  • Quick Recall
    • Evidence
    • Cr.P.C
    • IPC
    • N.I.Act
    • Pocso
    • PMLA
    • NDPS
    • Corruption Laws
    • General
    • Passports Act
  • Acquittal
    • S.C
    • Madras High Court
  • Digest
    • Monthly Digest
    • Weekly digest
  • Resources
    • Notes
    • Articles
  • 3 judge bench
  • Must have
  • Author’S Note
  • Legal words
  • About
    • Terms
    • Privacy policy
    • Cancellation & Refund Policy
    • Team
  • Mobile APP
  • My Bookmarks

Get Notifications

Notification
Follow US
> Quick Recall> BNS> S. 303(2) BNS: Anticipatory Bail was filed for a bailable offence however the  Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR

S. 303(2) BNS: Anticipatory Bail was filed for a bailable offence however the  Hon’ble High Court quashed the FIR

The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail for the offence under section 303(2) of the BNS., 2023 regarding the theft of tyres valued at Rs. 3,000. It is the admitted prosecution case that the value of the stolen property is less than Rs. 5,000. Since the value of the stolen property is Rs. 3,000, this is classified as a non-cognizable offence. Therefore, the police should have registered the FIR only after obtaining the appropriate order from the Magistrate. The petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable since the offence is bailable. Hon’ble Madras High Court has quashed the FIR.
Ramprakash Rajagopal November 22, 2024 6 Min Read
Share
quash
Points
PrayerOrderPetitioner filed A.B for the offence registered under section 303(2) BNS., 2023Theft of tyres worth rs. 3000The admitted case of prosecution is the value of theft is less than rs. 5000Since the stolen property value is rs. 3000 and is a non-cognizable offence the police ought to have registered the FIR after getting the appropriate order from the MagistratePetition filed for Anticipatory Bail is not maintainable since the offence is bailablePetition quashedPartyAuthor’s note
Prayer

For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.569/2024 on the file of the respondent police.

Order

The Court made the following order :-

Petitioner filed A.B for the offence registered under section 303(2) BNS., 2023

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 303(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.569 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

Theft of tyres worth rs. 3000

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was running a Vulcanizing shop. On 22.10.2024, when he came to the shop in the morning, old tyres worth about Rs.3,000/- were found missing. On verifying the CCTV footage it was found that the petitioner had taken those tyres.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

The admitted case of prosecution is the value of theft is less than rs. 5000

4. In the instant case, the FIR has been registered under Section 303(2) of BNS Act, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS Act’).

The admitted case of the prosecution is that three lorry tyres worth about Rs.3,000/- was stolen. The proviso to Subsection 2 of Section 303 of BNS Act provides that in a case of theft, where the value of theft property is less than Rs.5,000/- and person is convicted for the first time, the punishment that is provided is community service. For the value of property less than Rs.5,000, it is non-cognizable and bailable.

Since the stolen property value is rs. 3000 and is a non-cognizable offence the police ought to have registered the FIR after getting the appropriate order from the Magistrate

5. The specific case of prosecution as stated supra is that the value of the stolen property is Rs.3,000/-. Hence, it will come within the scope of non-cognizable offense. If that is so, as per Section 174 of BNSS Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘New Procedure Code’) the FIR can be registered only after getting an appropriate order from the learned Magistrate, who is having power to try such a case. In the absence of the same, the very registration of FIR is illegal. The law on the issue is too well settled.

Petition filed for Anticipatory Bail is not maintainable since the offence is bailable

6. In view of the above, the FIR that has been registered against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Technically speaking, this anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable, since the offence is bailable. However, this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is inclined to interfere with the FIR, since the very registration of FIR for a non-cognizable offence, without getting appropriate orders of learned Magistrate is illegal.

Petition quashed

7. In the light of the above discussion, the FIR in Cr.No.569 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police is hereby quashed and this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

Party

Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj … Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep By, The Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Cr.No.569/2024. … Respondent/Complainant – Before The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court (Criminal Jurisdiction) Crl O P(Md). No.19623 Of 2024 – Date: 13/11/2024 Present The Hon`Ble Mr.Justice N.Anand Venkatesh.

Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj vs. The State of T.NDownload

Author’s note

Where is the legal profession going?

When I read this order, I first noticed that the Hon’ble Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), through His Lordship Mr. Justice NAVJ, has provided complete justice (remedy) to the party/petitioner even though the present petition could not be filed as per the law.

By reading this order we may easily presumed and it is unfortunate that a lawyer has canvased his client (petitioner/party to this case) to file a petition for Anticipatory bail that too for a bailable offence by infusing fear of arrest in the mind of the party/petitioner as if he would be arrested if he fails to obtain Anticipatory Bail/Pre-Arrest Bail in a bailable offence case. The concerned lawyer in this case is succeeded by implying in the mind of the petitioner/party that there is a provision under the law to obtain Anticipatory Bail for a bailable offence, and thereafter making the party to sign in the vakalat.

To my knowledge, I never come across this type of practice by a legal practitioner, but the same was cornered by the Hon’ble Madras High Court and has provided a complete justice to the party/petitioner in the present case inasmuch as the High Court is not only the court of law so also the court of justice.

Subject Study

  • Anticipatory Bail in different case: An accused who is in custody in different case has to obtain Anticipatory Bail before he is formally arrested by the police under P.T warrant in another case
  • In economic offences affecting large number of people court may impose strict and additional conditions for bail and Anticipatory bail
  • Conditions on AB: No impossible and Impracticable conditions shall be imposed while granting Anticipatory bail
  • Anticipatory Bail: Court is required to focus on the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration
  • Anticipatory bail: Civil claims being settled by pressurising through criminal prosecution discouraged
  • BAIL – CLASS:2 – ANTICIPATORY BAIL

Further Study

Protest petition cannot be filed against the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance

Habeas corpus: Unexplained delay in disposing the representation made by the detenu is sufficient to set aside the order of detention

Quashing fir: High court cannot conduct mini investigation under section 482 cr.p.c as per Neeharika Infrastructure case

Whether bail has to cancel if witness(es) turned hostile?

Double Jeopardy and Same Offence – Explained

TAGGED:303(2) bns5000ab was filed for bailable offenceanticipatory bailauthor' s noteauthor's notebailbnscognizable offenceno abno anticipatory bailquashtheft
SOURCES:https://mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/madurai-do/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/crl%20op(md)_19623_2024_xxx_0_0_13112024_177.pdf
Previous Article quash compromise POCSO COMPROMISE QUASH: Power under section 482 Cr. P.C could not be used to quash heinous offences based on compromise which has a serious impact on society
Next Article section 195 Under section 195 Cr.P.C Hon’ble High Court can commence criminal proceeding
Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Popular Study

arbitration

Clarifying Arbitration Jurisdiction: The Role of Section 21 Notice, Section 11 Application, and Kompetenz-Kompetenz principle explained

section1 April 25, 2025
Discharge: Death by electrocution while working is purely accidental (death) and hence section 304 II IPC would not apply
Section 125(4) Cr.P.C: “No divorce No maintenance?” Supreme Court decided on factual aspect
Elicited portions through contradiction as per section 145 IEA from sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C statements are not substantive evidence
Can’t claim false promise to marry if the relationship becomes distant or goes sour

Related Study

Duty of the court to give a reasonable time to the advocate appointed to go through the file and get ready to assist the court
September 2, 2023
Conviction based on Extra-Judicial confession is confirmed
January 10, 2025
Confession recorded in the language unknown to the accused not improper if properly took down
April 19, 2023
Who can file complaint for company under section 142 N.I ACT? Explained
February 7, 2023
Quash: Apex Court quashed the G.O of TamilNadu constituting special courts for Land Grabbing cases and advice to enact appropriate legislation
May 14, 2023

About

Section1.in is all about the legal updates in Criminal and Corporate Laws. This website also gives opportunity to publish your (readers/users) articles subject to the condition of being edited (only if necessary) by the team of Advocates. Kindly send your articles to paperpageindia@gmail.com or WhatsApp to +919361570190.
  • Quick Links
  • Team
  • Terms
  • Cancellation Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • My Bookmarks

section1.in is powered by Paperpage.             © Paperpage Internet Services.                       All Rights Reserved.

Subscribe Newsletter for free

Subscribe to our newsletter to get judgments instantly!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

ஓர்ந்துகண் ணோடாது இறைபுரிந்து யார்மாட்டும் தேர்ந்துசெய் வஃதே முறை [541].

_திருவள்ளுவர்
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?