1. Custodial death — Charges under Sections 364, 304, and 506 IPC — Challenge to High Court orders granting anticipatory bail to accused persons. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 398
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA - Appellant
VERSUS
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2021(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)Nos. 1928-1929 of 2021)
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 3496 of 2021)
Decided On : 25-05-2021
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on generalized observations about legal processes, fundamental rights, or study reports. Bail applications must be decided by considering the specific facts, material circumstances, and merits of the individual case rather than general principles of law.
Subject
Bail - Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156(3) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 364, 304 and 506 - Appeal – Punishment for Criminal Intimidation - Causing death by negligence - Whether anticipatory bail granted by High Court was sustainable or not – Held, even while Court are inclined to allow these appeals and to set aside impugned orders while rejecting applications made by respondents for anticipatory bail, we would leave it open for them to apply for regular bail. If any such prayer is made by them, same may be considered by Court concerned in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations occurring in this matter in any of orders pertaining to plea for anticipatory bail and irrespective of any observation made in these appeals – Court also deem it appropriate to observe that if respondents apply for regular bail, their prayer be given due consideration expeditiously by Court concerned - Appeal disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh (AOR) Ms. Shivangi Singh Adv. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
For the Petitioner: Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh (AOR) Ms. Shivangi Singh Adv. Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR Mr. Vikas Bansal, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Informant and State oppose anticipatory bail citing offence gravity and trial directions — Accused seek bail based on precedents regarding personal liberty and custodial interrogation. (Para 11 , 12 )
3. High Court erred by granting anticipatory bail based on generalized observations about police corruption and human rights instead of analyzing specific material circumstances of the case. (Para 13 , 15 )
4. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted based on generalized observations about legal processes or fundamental rights; it requires consideration of the specific facts and material circumstances of the case. (Para 13 , 15 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court orders granting anticipatory bail set aside — Applications for anticipatory bail rejected — Liberty granted to apply for regular bail. (Para 17 , 18 , 25 )
6. Can anticipatory bail be granted based on generalized observations about the legal system or human rights?
No. The court held that a bail plea cannot be decided merely with generalized observations about the processes of law, fundamental rights, or study reports; it must be based on the relevant considerations and material circumstances of the specific case. (Para 13 , 15 )
7. What is the status of an anticipatory bail application once the accused has surrendered and is in custody?
Once the accused has surrendered and been taken into custody, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rendered practically redundant, although the accused retains the right to seek regular bail during the pendency of the trial. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Is an order granting bail sustainable if it relies on another order that has been stayed by a higher court?
No. An order passed in conflict with a stay order of a higher court, particularly when relying on an order that is not in operation due to such stay, cannot be approved. (Para 22 , 23 )
ORDER :
SLP(Crl.)Nos. 1928-1929 of 2021
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals, the informant of Case Crime No. C-37 of 1997, under Sections 364, 304 and 506 IPC, Police Station –Phoolpur, District – Varanasi, has challenged the order dated 03.02.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1195 of 2021, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-Shankhdhar Dwivedi in SLP(Crl.) No. 1928 of 2021; and another order of even date by the High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9211 of 2020, granting anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-R. Rajan in SLP(Crl.) No. 1929 of 2021.
3. The allegations in this matter are of custodial death of the father of the appellant on 01.03.1997, after his arrest from Varanasi on 28.02.1997. After having gone through the routes of the application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; filing of negative final report dated 23.10.1998; filing of protest petition by the appellant; acceptance of the protest petition; and certain miscellaneousapplications in the High Court for stay of proceedings, ultimately, the matter was taken up by this Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 8 of 2018.
4. The said writ petition was decided by the order dated 23.09.2020 by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court to which, one of us (Aniruddha Bose, J.) was a party. Therein, after taking note of the relevant background aspects and while expressing dissatisfaction that the criminal proceedings relating to the allegations of custodial death had remained stayed for 13 years, this Court effaced the order/s which were hindering the progress of the matter; and directed expeditious proceedings in the trial. This Court also directed that the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial almost on day-to-day basis and make an endeavour to conclude the same within a period of one year from the date of its commencement.
5. We are not recounting several other proceedings in the matter at different stages, for being not relevant for the present purpose. The relevant part of the matter is that pertaining to the applications seeking anticipatory bail by the respondents.
6. Though in the impugned order dated 03.02.2021 in Criminal Miscellaneous Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1195 of 2021, the High Court noticed the aforesaid order of this Court dated 23.09.2020 but, proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent No. 2-Shankhdhar Dwivedi with the observations and consideration which read as under:-
“7. After considering the rival submissions this court finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exception cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.
8. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the natu
