Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1323
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, CJI., A.S. Bopanna, Hima Kohli, JJ.
Nitesh Narayan Rane – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 530 of 2022 (Arising Out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-01-2022 in ABA No. 2 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay)
Decided On : 27-01-2022
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Satish Maneshinde, Advocate, Ms. Diksha Rai, Advocate, Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Sangram Desai, Advocate, Mr. Gajanan D. Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Preshit Surshe, Advocate, Mr. Amol Gawali, Advocate, Ms. Rohini B.Kadam, Advocate, Mr. Sambhaji Kharatmol, Advocate, Mr. Anmol Kheta, Advocate, Mr. Lakshay Mehta, Advocate, For the Appellant / Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr.Advocate, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Advocate, Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate, Mr. Sudeep R. Pasbole, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Advocate, Mr. Geo Joseph, Advocate, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The court has the discretion to refuse interference with the rejection of an anticipatory bail application but may allow the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail, granting interim protection against arrest.
Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Surrender and Regular Bail - The court refused to interfere with the rejection of the anticipatory bail application but allowed the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail, granting interim protection against arrest for ten days.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court refused to interfere with the impugned order but allowed the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail, granting interim protection against arrest for ten days.
Issues: Rejection of anticipatory bail application, permission to surrender and apply for regular bail, interim protection against arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided not to interfere with the rejection of the anticipatory bail application but allowed the petitioner to surrender and apply for regular bail, granting interim protection against arrest for ten days.
Final Decision: The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly, and pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
ORDER
1. The Court is convened through Video Conferencing.
2. Having heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner as also Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, who appears on caveat on behalf of the respondent -State, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court rejecting the anticipatory bail application preferred by the petitioner herein.
3. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the petitioner is permitted to surrender before the concerned trial court and apply for regular bail.
4. If the petitioner surrenders before the concerned trial court and applies for regular bail, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law, expeditiously.
5. For a period of ten days from today, interim protection against arrest is granted to the petitioner herein.
6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the same shall be decided by the concerned trial court.
7. The special leave petition stands disposed of accordingly.
8. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
