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

2018 Supreme(SC) 172

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI, ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
Pankaj Jain – Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 1445 of 2018)
Decided On : 23-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Release on furnishing bond on surrender in court u/s 88 CrPC cannot be claimed as right.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 88 – Use of word ‘may’ – Normally not a word of compulsion – Implies discretion – But when coupled with duty on an authority or Court, it would mean ‘shall’ casting an obligation on an authority or Court – Section 88 not conferring any right on any person – But conferring discretionary power to the court for ensuring appearance of such person – Use of word ‘may’, held, discretionary as ‘any person’ includes persons not even accused. (Para 16, 17, 23, 31)

       AIR 1963 SC 1618; AIR 1963 SC 1088; (2013) 6 SCC 573; (1970) 3 SCC 739 – Relied upon

       109 (2003) DLT 494; Bail Application No. 508 of 2011 (Del); 2000(2) PLJR 686 – Cited with approval

       (1874-80) All ER Rep. 43 – Referred

       2016 (3) RCR(Cri) 883 – Distinguished

       (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail application has to be first considered by trial court – Appellant not making any application for bail before trial court despite Supreme Court twice giving liberty – Supreme Court declining to consider bail observing that trial court will consider such application forthwith, when made. (Para 35)

       Facts of the case:

       Interpretation of the content and meaning of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has fallen for consideration in this case.

       Finding of the Court:

       Release on furnishing bond on surrender in court u/s 88 CrPC cannot be claimed as right.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court dated 21.12.2017 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 62167 of 2017 filed by the appellant. The principal issue, which has arisen for interpretation of this Court, is the content and meaning of Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”). Before we come to the impugned judgment of the High Court, it is necessary to note a series of litigations initiated at the instance of the appellant in different courts, arising out of criminal proceeding lodged against him.

3. A First Information Report under Sections 120-B, 409, 420, 466, 467, 469 and 471 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was lodged against one Yadav Singh, the then Chief Engineer of Noida, Greater Noida and the Yamuna Expressway Authorities and a charge sheet dated 15.03.2016 being Charge Sheet No.02/2016 was submitted in the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I. against several accused including Yadav Singh and the appellant Pankaj Jain. The trial court took cognizance by order dated 29.03.2016 summoning accused for 29.04.2016 for appearance. The appellant filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the Allahabad High Court being Application No. 31090 of 2016, praying for quashing the entire criminal proceeding of Special Case No. 10 of 2016 as well as summoning order dated 29.03.2016. The application was finally disposed off by the High Court vide order dated 17.10.2016 with a direction that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within two weeks and applies for bail, then his bail application shall be considered and decided. The appellant filed an Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10191/2016 against the judgment of the High Court dated 17.10.2016, which was dismissed by this Court as withdrawn on 16.01.2017 with liberty to apply for regular bail.

4. A supplementary charge sheet was filed on 31.05.2017, on the basis of which a Cognizance Order dated 07.06.2017 was passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. taking cognizance against the appellant and other accused under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Again an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 18849 of 2017 was filed by the appellant in the High Court praying for quashing the criminal proceeding in pursuance of supplementary charge sheet dated 31.05.2017. The High Court vide its order dated 06.07.2017 disposed of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Special Judge, C.B.I. within two weeks and applies for bail, it is expected that the same will be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law. It was further directed in the meantime for a period of two weeks, effect of non-bailable warrant shall be kept in abeyance. The appellant aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 06.07.2017 again filed an Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 7749 of 2017, which was disposed of by this Court on 24.11.2017 granting further two weeks’ time to the petitioner (appellant) to apply for regular bail before the Special Judge, C.B.I. with a direction to the trial court to consider the said application for bail forthwith.

5. On 27.11.2017, the case was taken up by the Special Judge, C.B.I. The Court noticed that appellant and one other accused was not present. The Court ordered for issuing non-bailable warrants and process of Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. against the appellant. On the same day, noticing the order passed by this Court on 24.11.2017 in S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 7749 of 2017, the learned Special Judge stayed the orders against the appellant for a period of two weeks’ as per order of this Court. The appellant further filed Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 199 of 2017 in this Court under Article 32 of the Co






























































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 Back to top