1. Disclosure of false information in nomination papers for municipal elections — violation of Section 447, Bihar Nagar Palika Act, 2007 — FIR under Section 447 of the Act and Section 420/34, IPC. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 583
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, KRISHNA MURARI, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
ANIL KUMAR SINGH ALIAS ANIL SINGH & ORS. – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL & ANR. – Respondent(s)
Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 293 of 2020 (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.98446/2020-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Decided On : 09-10-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail – Mere holding of a high office does not ipso facto entitle accused to get anticipatory bail.
Anticipatory bail – Mere holding of a high office does not ipso facto entitle accused to get anticipatory bail.
Subject
Criminal Law - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 – Bihar Municipal Act, 2007 – Section 447 read with Sections 420/34 of IPC – Anticipatory bail – Dispute emanates from disclosure of false information by petitioner in his nomination papers submitted for General Nagar Palika Elections, 2007 and those allegations were found by State Election Commission to be correct – Greater the office held, greater the responsibility of person as in case of petitioners – It cannot be said that petitioners held a high office, they are ipso facto entitled to anticipatory bail – Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected. (Paras 3, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Present writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of Constitution of India seeking directions for the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners to be heard by the Patna High Court which is stated to be still pending.
Findings of Court:
The SEC in exercise of power as enunciated under Section 18(2) of the Act declared elections void. Action was directed to be taken against the petitioners and in pursuance to the same, FIR was lodged against them under Section 447 of the said Act read with Section 420/34, IPC.
Result : Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and Writ Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Anoop Kr. Srivastav, O.P. Dubey, Shatrughan Dubey, Vijay Verma, Vipin Kr. Saxena, R.N. Pareek, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Anoop Kr. Srivastav, O.P. Dubey, Shatrughan Dubey, Vijay Verma, Vipin Kr. Saxena, R.N. Pareek, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners' willingness to join the investigation and the contention that custodial interrogation is unnecessary. (Para 4 )
3. The conduct of the petitioners and the high responsibility associated with the office held weigh against the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 5 )
4. Holding a high public office does not ipso facto entitle a person to the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 5 )
5. Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected and writ petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does holding a high public office automatically entitle a person to anticipatory bail?
No, holding a high office does not ipso facto entitle a person to anticipatory bail; rather, the greater the office held, the greater the responsibility of the person. (Para 5 )
7. What factors influence the court's decision to grant or refuse anticipatory bail in cases involving public officials?
The court considers the conduct of the petitioners and the level of responsibility associated with the office held by the person. (Para 5 )
8. Can a writ petition under Article 32 be used to direct a High Court to hear a pending bail application?
The court indicated that it is not possible to issue such directions, although it may choose to address the merits of the bail plea itself. (Para 2 )
ORDER
1. The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners to be heard by the Patna High Court which is stated to be still pending.
2. We put to learned counsel that it is not possible to issue such directions but if the learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to address us on the anticipatory bail, he may do so. Learned counsel thereafter proceeded to address us on the plea of anticipatory bail.
3. We have examined the matter on merits. The dispute emanates from the disclosure of false information by the petitioner in his nomination papers submitted for General Nagar Palika elections, 2007 and those allegations were found by the State Election Commission to be correct and thus, violation of provision under Section 447 of the Bihar Nagar Palika Act, 2007 was found. The SEC in exercise of power as enunciated under Section 18(2) of the Act declared the elections void. Action was directed to be taken against the petitioners and in pursuance to the same, FIR was lodged against them under Section 447 of the said Act read with Section 420/34, IPC.
4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are willing to join the investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.
5. We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in view of the conduct of the petitioners and the greater the office held, the greater the responsibility of the person as in the case of the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners held a high office, they are ipso facto entitled to anticipatory bail.
6. In view of the aforesaid we reject the prayer for anticipatory bail and dismiss the Writ Petition making the Bail Petition before Patna High Court infructuous.
7. Copy of the order be sent to the Patna High Court.
8. Pending application shall also stand disposed of.
