Back
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
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.
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another in ....
Anticipatory bail is permissible when an individual is not implicated in final investigative reports and maintains active cooperation with authorities, especially when parity with co-accused is estab....
Anticipatory bail cannot be granted when prior applications have been rejected on merit and there has been non-compliance with Supreme Court directives without any change in circumstances.
Anticipatory bail applications can be granted under changed circumstances, providing protection against wrongful arrest while ensuring cooperation with the investigation.
Continuation of anticipatory bail application is unnecessary once charges are filed without arrest; petitioner can seek regular bail.
Anticipatory bail rejected due to lack of genuine effort to comply with earlier court orders and evidence of avoiding arrest.
Misuse of the process of the court and forum shopping can be considered in the decision to grant anticipatory bail.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
