{"id":162868,"date":"1985-04-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-04-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985"},"modified":"2017-05-22T01:10:30","modified_gmt":"2017-05-21T19:40:30","slug":"pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","title":{"rendered":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 969, \t\t 1985 SCR (3) 780<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPOKAR RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/04\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nTULZAPURKAR, V.D.\nSEN, A.P. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1985 AIR  969\t\t  1985 SCR  (3) 780\n 1985 SCC  (2) 597\t  1985 SCALE  (1)918\n\n\nACT:\n\t    Criminal Procedure Code 1973 s 438- Anticipatory\nbail-grant of-When arises.\n\t   The son of the appellant ,  was injured by a fire\narm on August 23 ,  1983 at 4 p. m. The F.I.R. was lodged on\nthe next day at 11.30 a.m. In clear and unambiguous terms it\nalleged that  the respondent  was at the relevant time armed\nwith a\tgun and\t fired at that appellant's son. who suffered\ninjuries by  gun shot.\tSince he was alive at that time ,  a\ncase under  ss. 307  , 447  read with s. 149 and under . ss.\n148 ,\t379  and 827  of the  I.P.C. was registered. When he\nsuccumbed to  injuries ,   an offence under s.302 l.P.C. was\nalso added.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\t The respondent was not arrested till September 29 ,\n1983 ,\t when  he appeared  before the Sessions Judge ,\t and\nmoved an  application under  s.438 Cr. P.C. for anticipatory\nbail ,\t and  by order\tdated September\t 30 ,\t1983  it was\ngranted with  a direction  that if  the respondent was taken\ninto custody  by the  police he\t must be released on bail on\nhis furnishing\tsecurity in  the  amount  of  Rs.  5,000  on\ncondition that\the will assist in the investigation and will\nnot go out of India.\n\t  The appellant moved the High Court questioning the\ncorrectness of\tthe order granting anticipatory bail and for\ncancellation of\t the same.A  Single judge  held that  he had\nlocus standi  to move the High Court for cancellation of the\nanticipatory bail  but on  merits held\tthat no grounds were\nmade out  for its  cancellation ,   and accordingly rejected\nthe application.\n\t The Appellant appealed to this Court.\n\t Allowing the Appeal ,\n^\n\t HELD:\t1.  Relevant  considerations  governing\t the\nCourt's decision  in granting  anticipatory bail under s.438\nare materially\tdifferent from those when an application for\nbail by\t a person  who is  arrested  in\t the  course  of  an\ninvestigation as  also by  a person who is convicted and his\nappeal is pending before the\n781\nhigher court  and bail\tis sought  t during the pendently of\nthe  appeal.   In  the\t instant  case,\t  the\tHigh   Court\nunfortunately  fell   into  error   in\tmixing\tup  all\t the\nconsideration ,\t as if\tall the three become relevant in the\npresent situation. [785B-C]\n     2. The  distinction between  an ordinary  order of bail\nand an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former\nis granted  after arrest  and, therefore  means release from\nthe custody of the place, the latter is granted in anticipa-\ntion of\t arrest and`is,\t therefore, effective  at  the\tvery\nmoment of  arrest. Unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is\na pre-arrest  legal process which directs that if the person\nin whose  favour it  is issued is thereafter arrested on the\naccusation in  respect of  which the direction is issued, he\nshall  be  released  on\t bail.A\t direction  under  s.438  is\nintended to  confer conditional\t immunity from\tthe touch as\nenvisaged by s.46(1) or confinement. [78D-E]\n     3. In  regared to\tanticipatory bail,  if the  proposed\naccusation appears  to stem  not from  motives of furthering\nthe ends  of justice  but from\tsome  ulterior\tmotive,\t the\nobject being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having\nhim arrested,  a direction  for the release of the applicant\non bail\t in the event of his arrest would generally be made.\nIt  cannot   be\t laid\tdown  as  an  inexorable  rule\tthat\nanticipatory bail  cannot be  granted  unless  the  proposed\naccusation appears  (1) to  be actuated\t by malafides;\tand,\nequally, that  anticipatory bail must be granted if there is\nno fear\t that  the  applicant  will  abscond.  Some  of\t the\nrelevant considerations\t which govern  the discretion of the\nCourt while  deciding an  application for  anticipatory bail\nare the\t nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the\ncontext of  the events\tlikely to  lead to the making of the\ncharges,  a   reasonable  possibility  of  the\tapplicant  s\npresence not  being  secured  at  the  trial,  a  reasonable\napprehension that  witnesses will  be tampered with and \"the\nlarger interests  of the  public or  the  State\t \"-  In\t the\nevaluation of  the consideration  whether the  applicant  is\nlikely to  abscond. there  can be  no presumption  that\t the\nwealthy and  the mighty\t will submit themselves to trial and\nthat the  humble and  poor will\t run away from the course of\njustice, any  more than\t there can be a presumption that the\nformer are  not likely\tto commit a crime and the latter are\nmore likely to commit it. [785G-H; 786A-D]\n     4. The  incident in  which Bhanwaria  was injured\twith\nfire arm  occurred on August 23,1983 in respect of which the\nFirst Information  Report was  lodged on August 24, 1983 and\nit was\tin clear  and unambiguous  terms  alleged  that\t the\nrespondent was\tat the\trelevant time  armed with  a gun and\nfired  towards\t Bhanwaria  who\t suffered  injuries  by\t the\ngunshot. Amongst  others the  offence registered  was  under\ns.307 I.P.C.  that is  attempt to  commit murder.  The first\ninformation report thus discloses use of fire-arm with which\nthe respondent\tattempted to  commit  murder  of  Bhanwaria.\nSurprisingly, the Investigating Officer had not arrested him\ntill September\t29, 1983  when he  moved an  application for\nanticipatory  bail  under  s.438  Cr.P.C.  presumably  after\ncoming to  know that  injured has  succumbed to his injuries\nand the\t offence would\tbe one\tof murder  punishable  under\ns.302 I.P.C.  This  conduct  of\t the  Investigating  Officer\nleaves the  Court guessing.  The affidavit  led in  the High\nCourt states that the Respon-\n782\ndent is\t the Sarpanch  of the  village and is an influential\nperson and  that his  father is\t Ex-M.L.A. and is at present\nPradhan of  the Panchayat  Samiti.  They  are  not  relevant\nconsiderations for  cancelling anticipatory  bail,  when  it\nappears to have been granted by a clear misconception of the\nrelevant considerations\t governing the grant of anticipatory\nbail, [786F-H; 787A-B]\n     5. The accusation against the respondent is that he has\ncommitted an offence of murder punishable under s.302 I.P.C.\nSurprisingly,  when   anticipatory  bail   was\tgranted\t  on\nSeptember 30, 1983 there is not a whisper of it in the order\nof the learned Session Judge. When a person is accused of an\noffence of  murder by the use of a fire arm the Court has to\nbe careful  and circumspect  in entertaining  an application\nfor   anticipatory   bail.   Relevant\tconsiderations\t are\nconspicuous by silence in the order of the Session Judge, In\nthe instant case, it cannot be said that the accusation does\nnot appear  to stem  from motives  of furthering the ends of\nJustice but  from some ulterior motive and the object was to\ninjure and  humiliate the respondent by having him arrested.\nWhat prompted  the Sessions Judge to grant anticipatory bail\nleaves the Court guessing and the Court is none the wiser by\nthe order of the High Court declining to interfere. [787D-F]\n     6. The  order of the Session Judge clearly directs that\nif the\trespondent is  taken into  custody by the police, he\nmust be\t released on  bail on his furnishing security in the\namount mentioned  by him.  The order  is styled as one under\ns.438 Cr.P.C. [787H]\n     7. Unquestionably,\t no case  was made  out for granting\nanticipatory bail in this case. Status in life, affluence or\notherwise,  are\t  hardly   relevant   considerations   while\nexamining  the\t request  for  granting\t anticipatory  bail.\nAnticipatory bail  to some  extent intrudes in the sphere of\ninvestigation of  the crime  and the  Court must be cautious\nand circumspect\t in exercising such power of a discretionary\nnature. In  the instant\t case, the  power was  exercised sub\nsilentio as  to reasons\t or on\tirrelevant or considerations\nnot germane  to the  determination. -  This Court,  to avoid\nmiscarriage of justice, must interfere . [787D-E]\n     8. Some  very compelling circumstances must be made out\nfor granting  bail to  a person accused of committing murder\nand that  too when  the investigation is in progress. In the\ninstant case  the Investigating Officer did not even attempt\nto arrest  the appellant  though the  initial accusation was\nunder s.307 I.P.C. punishable with imprisonment for life and\nas 50-n\t as the\t victim of  the\t assault  succumbed  to\t his\ninjuries and offence under s.302 was registered, promptly an\napplication for\t anticipatory bail  was made and granted. If\nsuch an\t order is  allowed to  stand,  faith  of  public  in\nadministration of  justice  is\tlikely\tto  be\tconsiderably\nshaken- Therefore,  the order  granting anticipatory bail is\ncancelled.\n\t\t\t\t\t\t    [789D-F]\n     9. Settling  aside the order granting anticipatory bail\nshould in no way prejudice the respondent. It si open to him\nto move an application for being\n783\nenlarged on  bail and  the Court  would consider the same on\nmerits\twholly\tuninfluenced  by  the  earlier\torders,\t the\njudgment of  the learned  Single Judge of the High Court and\nthis Judgment. [789G-H]\n     Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab,<\/a>\n[1980] 2 S.C.C. 565, relied upon.\n     Gurcharan Singh  and Ors.\tState(Delhi Administration),\n[1978] 2  S.C.R. 358,  State v. Capt. Jagjit Singh, AIR<\/a> 1962\nS.C. 253,  Delhi Admn.\tv. Sanjay  Gandhi, AIR<\/a> 1978 S.C. 961\nand Bhagirath  Singh Judeja  v. State  of Gujarat,  [1984] I\nS.C.C. 284, referred to\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE\t JURISDICTION: Criminal\t Appeal\t No.
\n324 Of 1985
\n     From the judgment and order dated 7.7. 1984 of the High
\nCourt of Rajasthan in Crl. Misc. Appln. No. 758 of 1983.\n<\/p>\n
     Sobhag Mal Jain and S.K. Jain for the Appellant.
\n     A.N.  Mulla,   Surya  Kant\t  and  B.   Sharma  for\t the
\nRespondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J. Special leave granted.\n<\/p>\n
     Unusual though  it may appear to be, under a compelling
\nnecessity in  the interest  of justice, we would depart from
\nthe ordinary  response of  this Court  to matters  involving
\nbail. Ordinarily, this Court is loathe to interfere with the
\norders granting\t or  refusing  bail  but  it  cannot  be  an
\ninsurmountable obstacle\t in the\t way of\t rectifying an order
\nwhich tends to disclose miscarriage of justice.\n<\/p>\n
     An incident  occurred on  August 23,  1983 in which one
\nBhanwaria, son\tof  the\t present  appellant  received  fatal
\ninjuries resulting  in his  death. An information was lodged
\nwith  the   Police  Station,   Khedapa,\t District   Jodhpur,
\nRajasthan State\t about the  occurrence on  August  24,\t1983
\naround 11.30  A.M. At  that time Bhanwaria was alive and the
\noffence was  registered under  Sec. 307,  447 read with Sec.
\n149 under  Sec. 148,  379 and  327 of the Indian Penal Code.
\nWhen the hospital authority sent the message
\n784<\/span>
\nthat Bhawaria,\tthe victim  of assault,\t who was admitted in
\nthe hospital  for treatment  has succumbed  to his injuries,
\nthe Investigating  Officer also\t added an offence under Sec.
\n30′ IPC.  Soon thereafter  on September 29, 1983, the second
\nrespondent Chandan Singh s\/o Shri Ranjit Singh (‘respondent’
\nfor short)  appeared  before  the  learned  Sessions  Judge,
\nJodhpur and  moved an  application under Sec. 438, Cr. P. C.
\nfor granting  him anticipatory\tbail. The  public prosecutor
\nappearing for the State opposed the application for grant of
\nanticipatory bail.  The learned\t Judge by  his\torder  dated
\nSeptember 30,  1983 accepted  the  application\tand  granted
\nanticipatory bail  to  the  respondent\tobserving  that\t the
\ndispute is  with regard\t to the right to cultivate a certain
\nfield from which when deceased Bhanwaria was coming out, the
\nrespondent fired at him and caused the injuries which proved
\nfatal. The  learned Judge  further observed  that keeping in
\nview some  decisions referred  to by  him,  he\twas  of\t the
\nopinion that the application tor anticipatory bail should be
\ngranted. The  learned Judge  then ordered  that\t if  the  1)
\naccused is  taken into\tcustody by  the police,\t he must  be
\nreleased on bail on his furnishing security in the amount of
\nRs. 5,000  on condition that he will assist in investigation
\nand will  not interfere in the investigation and will not go
\nout of India.’
\n     The present appellant moved the High Court of Rajasthan
\nquestioning  the   correctness\tof   this  order   and\t for
\ncancellation of the anticipatory bail.A learned Single Judge
\nof  the\t  High\tCourt  negatived  the  contention  that\t the
\npetitioner had\tno locus  standi to  move the High Court for
\ncancellation of\t anticipatory bail.  On merits,\t the learned
\nJudge after  referring to  several decisions  observed\tthat
\nwhile dealing  with an\tapplication for cancellation of bail
\nwarranting interference\t with the discretionary order passed
\nby  the\t  learned  Sessions   Judge   granting\t bail,\t the
\nconsiderations\twhich  should  weigh  with  the\t court\twere
\nwhether: (1)  the accused  would be readily available during
\nthe trial;  (2) he  is not  likely to  abuse the  discretion
\ngranted\t his  favour  ‘by  tampering  with  the\t prosecution
\nwitnesses, concluded  that the respondent and his father are
\ninfluential  persons   and  hold   important  posts  in\t the
\nPanchayat  or\tZila  Parishad\t furnished  no\t ground\t for
\ncancelling bail\t and that  it is  not necessary\t to  examine
\nwhether anticipatory  bail ought  to have  been granted, but
\nwhat must  be considered  is whether a case tor cancellation
\nof the same is made out. The learned Judge then held that
\n785<\/span>
\nsuch grounds are not shown to exist and accordingly rejected
\nthe  application. Hence this appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     Relevant considerations governing the court ‘s decision
\nin granting  anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 are materially
\ndifferent from\tthose when  an application  for\t bail  by  a
\nperson who  is arrested\t in the\t course of  investigation as
\nalso by\t a person  who is  convicted and  his 13  appeal  is
\npending before\tthe higher  court and  bail is sought during
\nthe pendency  of the  appeal. Three  situations in which the
\nquestion of  granting or refusing to grant bail would arise,
\nmaterially and\tsubstantially differ from each other and the
\nrelevant considerations\t on which  the courts would exercise
\nits discretion,\t one way  or the  other,  are  substantially
\ndifferent from\teach other.  This is  necessary to be stated
\nbecause the  learned Judge.  in the High Court unfortunately
\nfell into  an error  in mixing Up all the considerations, as
\nif all the three become relevant in the present situation.\n<\/p>\n
     The  decision  of\tthe  Constitutional  Bench  in\tShri
\nGurbaksh Singh\tSibbia &  Ors. v. State of Punjab<\/a>(1) clearly
\nlays down that ‘the distinction between an ordinary order of
\nbail and  an order  of anticipatory bail is that whereas the
\nformer is  granted after arrest and there fore means release
\nfrom the  custody of  the police,  the latter  is granted in
\nanticipation of\t arrest and  is therefore  effective at\t the
\nvery moment  of arrest.’ Unlike a post-arrest order of bail,
\nit is  a pre-arrest  legal process which directs that if the
\nperson in  whose favour\t it is issued is thereafter arrested
\non the\taccusation in  respect of  which  the  direction  is
\nissued, he  shall be released on bail.\tdirection under Sec.
\n438 is\tintended to  confer conditional\t immunity  from\t the
\ntouch as  envisaged by\tSec. 46\t (1) or confinement. In para
\n31,  Chandrachud,  CJ  clearly\tdemarcated  the\t distinction
\nbetween\t the  relevant\tconsiderations\twhile  examining  an
\napplication for\t anticipatory bail  and an  application\t for
\nbail after  arrest in  the course of investigation, Says the
\nlearned Chief  Justice that ‘in regard to anticipatory bail,
\nif the\tproposed accusation appears to stem not from motives
\nof furthering  the ends\t of justice  but from  some ulterior
\nmotive,\t the  object  being  to\t injure\t and  humiliate\t the
\napplicant by  having  him  arrested,  a\t direction  for\t the
\nrelease of the appellant on bail in the event of his arrest’
\nwould generally\t be made. It was observed that ‘it cannot be
\nlaid down as an inexorable rule that anticipa-
\n(1) [1980] 2 S.C.C. 565.\n<\/p>\n
786<\/span><\/p>\n
tory bail  cannot be  granted unless the proposed accusation
\nappears to  be actuated\t by mala  fides; and  equally,\tthat
\nanticipatory bail  must be  granted if there is no fear that
\nthe  applicant\t will  abscond.’   Some\t of   the   relevant
\nconsiderations which  govern the discretion, noticed therein
\nare the\t nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the
\ncontext of  the events\tlikely to  lead to the making of the
\ncharges,  a   reasonable  possibility\tof  the\t applicant’s
\npresence not  being  secured  at  the  trial,  a  reasonable
\napprehension. that  witnesses will be tampered with and “the
\nlarger interests  of the  public or  the State”, are some of
\nthe considerations which the court has to keep in mind while
\ndeciding an  application for anticipatory bail.’ caution was
\nvoiced that  ‘in the evaluation of the consideration whether
\nthe  applicant\tis  likely  to\tabscond,  there\t can  be  no
\npresumption that  the wealthy  and the\tmighty\twill  submit
\nthemselves to  trial and  that the  humble and the poor will
\nrun away from the course of justice, and more than there can
\nbe a  presumption that the former are not likely to commit a
\ncrime and the latter are more
\n likely to commit it.\n<\/p>\n
     Having noticed the relevant considerations which should
\nweigh with  the court  in the matter of granting or refusing
\nto grant  anticipatory bail,  let us first look at the order
\nmade by the learned Sessions Judge.\n<\/p>\n
     The incident  in which  Bhanwaria was injured with fire
\narm occurred  on August\t 23, 1983  in respect  of which\t the
\nfirst information  report was  lodged on August 24, 1983, in
\nwhich it was in clear and unambiguous terms alleged that the
\nrespondent was\tat the\trelevant time  armed with  a gun and
\nfired towards  Bhanwaria who  suffered injuries by gun shot-
\nThe incident occurred as stated earlier around 4.00 P. M. On
\nAugust 23,  1983 and  this information\tis lodged  with\t the
\nPolice Station\tat a  distance of  30 k.m. from the scene of
\noccurrence on  August 24, 1983 at 11.30 a.m. Amongst others,
\nthe offence  registered was  under Sec. 307 IPC i.e. attempt
\nto  commit   murder.  The   first  information\treport\tthus
\ndiscloses  use\t of  fire  arm\twith  which  the  respondent
\nattempted to  commit murder  of Bhanwaria. Surprisingly, the
\nInvestigating Officer  had not\tarrested him  till September
\n29, 1983  when he moved an application for anticipatory bail
\nunder Sec.438  of the  Code of Criminal Procedure presumably
\nafter coming  to know  that injured Bhanwaria has  succumbed
\nto his injuries and the offence would one of murder
\n787<\/span>
\npunishable  under   Sec.  302\tIPC.  This  conduct  of\t the
\nInvestigating Officer  left us\tguessing. Some light is shed
\nby some averments from the affidavit filed in the High Court
\nand extracted  by the  learned Judge  in his judgment. It is
\nstated that  the respondent  is the Sarpanch of Vil. Danwara
\nand is\tan influential\tperson and  that his  father  Ranjit
\nSingh  is  ex-M.L.A.  and  is  at  present  Pradhan  of\t the
\nPanchayat Samiti.  Are these relevant considerations for not
\ncancelling anticipatory\t bail when  it appears\tto have been
\ngranted\t by   a\t clear\t misconception\t of   the   relevant
\nconsiderations governing  of anticipatory  bail ? The answer
\nis emphatically\t in the\t negative in  view of  the extracted
\nobservations from  the decision of the Constitution Bench in
\nGurbaksh Singh Sibbia’s case.\n<\/p>\n
     The accusation  against the  respondent is\t that he has
\ncommitted an  offence of  murder punishable-under  Sec.\t 302
\nIPC. Surprisingly,  when anticipatory  bail was\t granted  on
\nSeptember 30,  1983, there  is not  a whisper  of it  in the
\norder of  the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur. When a person
\nis accused  of a offence of murder by the use of a fire arm,
\nthe Court  has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining
\nan   application    for\t   anticipatory\t   bail.    Relevant
\nconsiderations are  conspicuous by  silence in\tthe order of
\nthe learned  Sessions Judge.  Could it\tbe said in this case
\nthat the  accusation appears  to stem  not from\t motives  of
\nfurthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive
\n? Could\t it be\tsaid that  the object  being to\t injure\t and
\nhumiliate the  respondent by  having  him  arrested  ?\tWhat
\nprompted the  learned Sessions\tJudge to  grant anticipatory
\nbail left  us guessing\tand we\tarc none  the wiser  by\t the
\ndiscussion  in\t the  order  of\t the  learned  Single  Judge
\ndeclining to interfere.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr.  Mulla,   learned  counsel  who  appeared  for\t the
\nrespondent urged  that the  order of  the  learned  Sessions
\nJudge is  not of  anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 but it is
\nan order made after looking into the papers of investigation
\nand therefore,\tit is  an order of bail under Section 439 of
\nthe  Code  of  Criminal\t Procedure.  We\t remain\t unconvinced
\nbecause the  order of  the learned  Sessions  Judge  clearly
\ndirects that  if the respondent is taken into custody by the
\npolice, he  must be  released  on  bail\t on  his  furnishing
\nsecurity in  the amount\t mentioned by him. The learned Judge
\nhimself styled\tthe order  as one under Sec. 438 of the Code
\nof Criminal  Procedure. If  there was  any doubt  about this
\naspect? the penultimate para of the judge-\n<\/p>\n
788<\/span><\/p>\n
ment of\t the learned  Single Judge of the High Court dispels
\nthe same  when it  recites that no order for cancelling bail
\ncan be\tmade when  the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.
\n1, Jodhpur  has granted\t anticipatory bail to the respondent
\nby his order dated September 30, 1983.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Mulla\tthen attempted to urge that on merits a good
\ncase for  granting bail\t is made out. We are not inclined to
\nexamine this contention because neither the learned Sessions
\nJudge nor  the learned\tSingle Judge  of the  High Court has
\nexamined the  case from\t that angle. The only question which
\nwe were\t called upon  to  decide  is  whether:\tthe  learned
\nSessions Judge\twas justified  in granting anticipatory bail
\nin  the\t  facts\t  and\tcircumstances\tof   this   case   ?
\nUnquestionably,\t no   case  was\t  made\tout   for   granting
\nanticipatory bail  in this  case. Let  it be made distinctly
\nclear that  status in  life,  affluence\t or  otherwise,\t are
\nhardly relevant\t considerations while  examining the request
\nfor granting  anticipatory bail.  Anticipatory\tbail to some
\nextent intrudes\t in the sphere of investigation of crime and
\nthe court  must be  cautious and  circumspect in  exercising
\nsuch power  of\ta  discretionary  nature.  This\t case  amply
\nillustrates that  the power was exercised sub silentio as to
\nreasons or  on irrelevant  or considerations  not germane to
\nthe determination.  This  Court,  to  avoid  miscarriage  of
\njustice, must interfere.\n<\/p>\n
     The  High\tCourt  referred\t to  two  decisions  of\t the
\nRajasthan High\tCourt on the question of locus standi of the
\npresent\t appellant  but\t once  that  was  conceded  and\t not
\nquestioned before us, we need not refer to them. The learned
\nJudge then  referred to the decision in Gurbax Singh sibba’s
\ncase, but  failed to  take note of the relevant observations
\nwhich we  have extracted  herein before.  Reference  to\t the
\ndecision  in   Gurcharan  Singh\t  &  Ors.  v.  State  (Delhi
\nAdministration)<\/a>(1) by  the High\t Court\tis  hardly  apposite
\nbecause the controversy centered round the power of the High
\nCourt to  deal with the application for cancellation of bail
\nunder Section  439(2? of  the Code of Criminal Procedure and
\non merits  this Court  held that  the  High  Court  was\t not
\njustified in cancelling the bail The Court was not concerned
\nwith examining\tthe relevant  considerations for granting or
\nrefusing to  grant  anticipatory  hail\tin  that  case.\t The
\ndeision in
\n(1) [1973] 2 SCR 358.\n<\/p>\n
789<\/span><\/p>\n
State v.  Capt. Jagjit\tsingh(1) would be of n assistance as
\nthe provision  of anticipatory bail come to be introduced in
\nthe Code  of 1973.  Similarly the decision in Delhi Admn. v.
\nSanjay Gandhi<\/a>(2)  is of\t no assistance because the court was
\nconcerned with\tthe question of cancellation of bail already
\ngranted long back in the facts and circumstances of the case
\non account  of events subsequent to the order granting bail.
\nThe High  Court lastly referred to Bhagirath Singh Judeja v.
\nState of  Gujrat (3)  because that  was the  case  in  which
\naccusation was\tfor an\toffence under  Sec. 307\t IPC and the
\nlearned Sessions  Judge had  granted bail  which  order\t was
\nquashed by  the High  Court. As stated earlier, by reference
\nto these  decisions not\t of topical  interest bearing on the
\nquestion of  grant or  refusal of anticipatory bail the High
\nCourt unfortunately missed crux of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we\tconclude this  judgment,  it  must  be\tmade
\ndistinctly clear  that some  very  compelling  circumstances
\nmust be\t made out  for granting\t bail to a person accused of
\ncommitting murder  and that  to when the investigation is in
\nprogress. In  fact, the\t Investigating Officer\tdid not even
\nattempt\t to   arrest  the   appellant  though\tthe  initial
\naccusation  was\t  under\t Sec.\t307  IPC   punishable\twith
\nimprisonment for  life. And  as soon  as the  victim of\t the
\nassault succumbed  to his injuries and an offence under Sec.
\n302 was registered, promptly an application for anticipatory
\nbail was  made and  granted. If\t such an order is allowed to
\nstand, faith  of public\t in  administration  of\t justice  is
\nlikely to  be considerably  shaken. Therefore,\twe  have  no
\noption but to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail.\n<\/p>\n
     By our  setting aside  the order  granting\t anticipator
\nbail,  respondent   should  in\tno  way\t be  prejudiced.  If
\nconsequent upon\t the setting  aside of\tthe  order  granting
\nanticipatory bail,  the\t  respondent is\t arrested which must
\nordinarily follow,  it is  open to him, if he is so advised,
\nto move\t an application\t for being  enlarged on bail and the
\nCourt would  consider the same on merits wholly uninfluenced
\nby the\tearlier orders,\t the judgment  of the learned Single
\nJudge of the High Court and this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
(1) AIR 1962 S.C. 253.\n<\/p>\n
(2) AIR 1978 S.C. 961.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1984] 1 S.C.C.284.\n<\/p>\n
790<\/span><\/p>\n
     Accordingly this  appeal is allowed and the order dated
\nSeptember  30,\t 1983  granting\t anticipatory  bail  to\t the
\nrespondent Chandan Singh s\/o Ranjit Singh is quashed and set
\naside and  the bond  furnished by him is cancelled. We order
\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal allowed\n791<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1985 AIR 969, 1985 SCR (3) 780 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: POKAR RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/04\/1985 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. TULZAPURKAR, V.D. SEN, A.P. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-162868","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\"},\"wordCount\":2653,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\",\"name\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985","datePublished":"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985"},"wordCount":2653,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985","name":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-04-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-21T19:40:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pokar-ram-vs-state-of-rajasthan-and-anr-on-17-april-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pokar Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 17 April, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162868","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=162868"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/162868\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=162868"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=162868"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=162868"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}