1. Anticipatory bail rejection — Prevention of Corruption Act — Accused joined investigation — Charge-sheet filed. (Para 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1793
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Abhay S. Oka, JJ.
Ajay Lohia – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1576 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8705 of 2022) (SLP D. No. 26566 of 2022)
Decided On : 16-09-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant should apply for regular bail and is granted protection against arrest till the bail application is decided.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Anticipatory Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Procedure - Prevention of Corruption Act - Crl. Appeal No.838 of 2021, Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - The court directed the appellant to apply for regular bail and granted protection against arrest till the bail application is decided, citing the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.838 of 2021 titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.'
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought anticipatory bail, which was not granted, and warrants for arrest were issued. The appellant was directed to apply for regular bail and granted protection against arrest till the bail application is decided.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's situation was similar to the case of Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and that the correct approach would have been to apply for regular bail. The court granted protection against arrest till the bail application is decided.
Issues: The main issue was the appellant's request for anticipatory bail and the subsequent issuance of arrest warrants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the judgment in Crl. Appeal No.838 of 2021 titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' which stated that the person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was disposed, and the appellant was directed to apply for regular bail and granted protection against arrest till the bail application is decided.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Shristi Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeet Paliwal, Advocate, Mr. S. K. Garg, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Rani, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Mr. Gaurav Agarwal, Advocate, Ms. Shristi Gupta, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeet Paliwal, Advocate, Mr. S. K. Garg, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Rani, Advocate, Mr. Shashank Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Table of Contents
2. Bail eligibility — Accused joined investigation without arrest — Charge-sheet filed — Parity with precedent. (Para 5 )
3. Regular bail appropriateness — No requirement for custody upon filing of charge-sheet — Protection against arrest pending bail application. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Custody not prerequisite for regular bail upon filing of charge-sheet. (Para 6 )
5. Direction to apply for regular bail — Interim protection against arrest granted until disposal of bail application. (Para 7 , 8 )
6. Is custody necessary for applying for regular bail once a charge-sheet has been filed?
No, a person does not need to be produced in custody upon the filing of a charge-sheet to seek regular bail. (Para 6 )
7. What is the appropriate legal remedy when anticipatory bail is rejected but the accused has joined the investigation and a charge-sheet is filed?
The appropriate approach is to apply for regular bail, as the filing of the charge-sheet removes the necessity for the accused to be in custody. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. Can a court grant interim protection against arrest while a regular bail application is pending?
Yes, the court may grant protection against arrest until the regular bail application is decided to ensure the ends of justice are met. (Para 7 )
ORDER
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
4. The endeavor of the appellant to seek anticipatory bail was not fruitful in terms of the impugned order dated 30.3.2022 passed by the Special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), CBI Court No.1. Ghaziabad.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that his position is similar to the case of Anil Kumar Rawat Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation decided in Criminal Appeal No.1100/2022 dated 26th July, 2022, inasmuch as he had joined the investigation, was not arrested, and charge-sheet has been filed.
6. In our view the correct approach would have been for the appellant to apply for regular bail as his case would be covered by the reportable order of this Court dated 16.8.2021 in Crl. Appeal No.838 of 2021 titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.' that the person need not be produced in custody on charge-sheet being filed. However, learned counsel for the appellant submits that immediately after rejection of anticipatory bail application, warrants for arrest have been issued.
7. We are thus of the view that the ends of justice can be met by directing that the appellant should apply for regular bail and till his application is considered, protection is granted to him against arrest till the bail application is decided. The bail application be filed within two weeks from today and will be examined in the contours of the judgment titled 'Siddharth Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.'.
8. The criminal appeal stands disposed.
