SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 471

A. M. AHMADI, K. VENKATASWAMI, M. K. MUKHERJEE
Raghuvir Saran Agarwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. – Respondent


ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. Heard counsel. We are surprised, not a little, that anticipatory bail has been granted in a matter where dowry death is alleged to have taken place and the investigation is in progress without assigning any reason whatsoever. If the provision in regard to grant of anticipatory bail is invoked at a stage when the investigation is in progress and the court is unaware of the seriousness of the matter, it would hamper the investigation itself. In any case, if the High Court felt inclined to grant anticipatory bail, it should have stated the reasons for exercising that jurisdiction. Otherwise every person against whom a first information report is lodged alleging a serious crime will rush to the High Court or the Sessions Court that the case may be considered and obtain anticipatory bail rendering the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of arrest, etc. redundant. If the High Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, it should indicate the reasons why it has exercised power in cases where if the allegations are true, some serious crime could be stated to have been committed. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top