IMPORTANT POINT
If at the stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail certain aspects of the case are considered but later if the investigating agency files a report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. 1973, it is difficult to perceive that such a step would amount to interference with the administration of justice.

Headnote:Interference with the administration of justice-Stage of anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 114, 302 IPC and under Section 25(1)(c) of Arms Act-Cancellation Report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. filed by appellants (Investigating Agency) when anticipatory bail was rejected twice-High Court observing it as a serious misconduct by investigating agency (the appellants) and directed State Government to take serious action against them-Whether proper? (No)-Result-Such observations are to be expunged -Appeal allowed accordingly.
Held : If at the stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail certain aspects of the case are considered but later if the investigating agency files a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C., it is difficult to perceive that such a step would amount to interference with the administration of justice. We have carefully gone through the observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court and we are of the opinion that those observations are neither justified nor called for in the case. Therefore, we direct that the observations made in the order of the High Court from paragraph 16 till the end of the order, except the operative part thereof, shall stand expunged. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (Paras 3, 4 & 5)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. While considering an application for grant of bail to accused in a criminal case, the High Court made certain observations in the order under appeal against the appellants that they have tried to over reach the process of law by submitting a report under Section 169 Cr. P.C. before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate to discharge all the three accused for serious offences arising under Sections 114, 302 IPC and under section 25(1)(c) of the Arms Act. The High Court observed that by filing the cancellation report the appellants had shown scant regard to the proceedings before the Sessions Court and the High Court, as on two occasions the petitions for anticipatory bail were rejected; that, the appellants have not applied their mind in filing such a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C. and have tried to interfere with the administration of justice amounting to serious misconduct: that, the State Government should take serious action, including suspension from service of both the appellants.

3. If at the stage of grant or refusal of anticipatory bail certain aspects of the case are considered but later if the investigating agency files a report under Section 169 Cr.P.C., it is difficult to perceive that such a step would amount to interference with the administration of justice.

4. We have carefully gone through the observations made by the learned Judge of the High Court and we are of the opinion that those observations are neither justified nor called for in the case. Therefore, we direct that the observations made in the order of the High Court from paragraph 16 till the end of the order, except the operative part thereof, shall stand expunged.

5. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

(N.K.R.) Appeal allowed accordingly.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday