Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Late flourish masks CSK’s batting woes on lively Chepauk track, hosts post 158/7
Chennai (PTI): Bowlers calling the shots in a format dominated by big hitters is a rarity, but that script played out at Chepauk on Sunday as Gujarat Titans exploited a lively, bounce-friendly surface to stifle Chennai Super Kings before the hosts managed a late flourish to reach 158 for 7.
On a pitch that offered sharp carry, stroke-making demanded discretion and adaptability. Instead, CSK’s batters often opted for high-risk shots without fully assessing conditions, and paid the price with a flurry of miscued dismissals.
Invited to bat, CSK never quite found rhythm but skipper Ruturaj Gaikwad’s maiden half-century (74 not out) of the current IPL season lent a semblance of respectability to the total in a season where 200-plus scores have become commonplace.
Gaikwad's knock came off 60 balls with six fours and four sixes after a laboured start.
The tone was set early by GT pacer Mohammed Siraj, who extracted steep bounce and forced errors.
Sanju Samson (11) began watchfully, negotiating the first over before opening up against Kagiso Rabada to bring up his 5000 IPL runs milestone. However, Rabada’s bounce soon accounted for him as a hard slash outside off resulted in a faint edge that Jos Buttler pouched safely.
The dismissal triggered a collapse. Urvil Patel (4) fell in the same Rabada over attempting an ambitious pull, while Sarfaraz Khan (0) succumbed to Siraj’s extra lift, mistiming a short ball to offer a simple catch.
At 28 for 3 inside the Powerplay, CSK were already in trouble.
Gaikwad and Dewald Brevis (2) needed to rebuild, but the latter’s impatience against spinner Manav Suthar led to his downfall, holing out after failing to get to the pitch of the ball.
The mounting wickets forced Gaikwad into a shell — an approach that, while understandable, further stalled the momentum. His reluctance to improvise allowed dot balls to pile up, with CSK reaching 50 only in the 12th over.
The skipper eventually broke free, taking on Arshad Khan and Jason Holder with a couple of towering sixes, but the acceleration came too late.
Shivam Dube, dropped thrice on 6, 11 and 22, struggled for fluency before Arshad cleaned him up.
Kartik Sharma (15) and Jamie Overton (18) provided late impetus with a few lusty hits, but the damage had already been done.
On a pitch that rewarded discipline and smart shot selection, Titans' bowlers executed their plans to perfection, while CSK’s batters failed to read the conditions in time, a lapse that ultimately defined the innings.
