1. Cross case arising from civil dispute — Delay in lodging FIR — Petition for anticipatory bail. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 922
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Sumit Subhaschandra Gangwal & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. – Respondents
Petition(s) For Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3561/2023
Decided On : 27-04-2023
Important Points
In matters pertaining to the liberty of citizens, the court should act promptly.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
BAIL - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [No specific act sections referenced] Summary: The court granted ad interim protection to the petitioner in a cross case arising out of a civil dispute. The court found that there was no material to show that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were invoked. Additionally, the court noted a delay of six days in lodging the FIR. The court held that the petitioner's custodial interrogation was not necessary for the alleged offense. The court criticized the High Court for a lengthy elaboration of evidence and an inordinate delay in passing the order pertaining to the petitioner's liberty. The court allowed the petition and made the previous order absolute.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advocate, Mr. Diganta Gogoi, Advocate and Mr. Bitu Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, Advocate, Ms. Sonakshi, Advocate, Mr. Matrugupta Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate and Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, Advocate, Mr. Diganta Gogoi, Advocate and Mr. Bitu Kumar Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Mahesh Prakash Shinde, Advocate, Mr. Vatsalya Vigya, Advocate, Ms. Sonakshi, Advocate, Mr. Matrugupta Mishra, Advocate, Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate, Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate and Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent.
Table of Contents
2. State opposition to the grant of anticipatory bail. (Para 4 )
3. Custodial interrogation unnecessary — Detailed elaboration of evidence avoided at bail stage — Promptness required in matters pertaining to citizen's liberty. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. Detailed elaboration of evidence must be avoided at the bail stage — Inordinate delay in passing orders affecting personal liberty violates constitutional mandate. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Petition allowed — Ad interim protection made absolute — Petitioner directed to cooperate with investigation. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Should courts provide detailed elaboration of evidence when deciding on bail or anticipatory bail?
No, detailed elaboration of evidence should be avoided at the stage of granting or rejecting bail or anticipatory bail. (Para 6 )
7. What is the legal standard regarding the timeliness of judicial orders affecting personal liberty?
Courts must act promptly in matters pertaining to the liberty of citizens, as inordinate delay in passing such orders is not in tune with the constitutional mandate. (Para 8 )
8. Under what condition is anticipatory protection typically granted regarding custodial interrogation?
Anticipatory protection may be granted when the court finds that custodial interrogation is not necessary for the offenses alleged. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Vide order dated 24.03.2023, we had granted ad interim protection to the petitioner.
2. While granting ad interim protection the three factors weighed with us, those were:-
(i) That it was a cross case arising out of civil dispute.
(ii) Prima facie there was no material to show that the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were invoked.
(iii) That the incident was alleged to have been taken place on 17.02.2022 and the FIR was lodged on 23.02.2022, as such there was a delay of six days in lodging the FIR.
3. We have heard Shri Atul Babasaheb Dakh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, learned counsel for the respondent/State.
4. Shri Pande, learned counsel, vehemently opposes the petition.
5. However, as stated hereinabove, we, prima facie, find that the petitioner's custodial interrogation would not be necessary for the offenes alleged with.
6. One more factor that needs to be noted is that the High Court, by an order running into 13 pages, has rejected the application. This Court has consistently right from the case of Niranjan Singh and Another v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, (1980) 2 SCC 559, held that detailed elaboration of evidence has to be avoided at the stage of grant/rejection of bail/anticipatory bail. We do not appreciate such a lengthy elaboration of evidence at this stage.
7. Another factor that needs to be noted is that though the order was reserved on 25.01.2023, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has pronounced the order on 01.03.2023 i.e. after a period of one month and one week.
8. It is always said that in the matters pertaining to liberty of citizens, the Court should act promptly. In our view, such an inordinate delay in passing an order pertaining to liberty of a citizen is not in tune with the constitutional mandate.
9. Therefore, we are inclined to allow this petition.
10. The order dated 24.03.2023, passed by this Court, is made absolute. Needless to state that the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation and report to I.O. as and when directed by him/her.
11. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
