1. Appeal against the rejection of an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. involving offences under the Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 628
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Gulab Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3221 of 2024 (@SLP (Crl.) No. 8580 of 2024)
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Anticipatory bail can be granted to accused keeping in view his old age and ailments.
Anticipatory bail can be granted to accused keeping in view his old age and ailments.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 438 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 482] – Anticipatory Bail Application – Appellant apprehending his arrest in connection with crimes registered in respect of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7/13(i)D read with Section 13(ii) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – While issuing notice, Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest in favour of appellant, subject to appellant joining investigation – During course of investigation, appellant had not been summoned at all – He is now over 80 years of age and is suffering from dementia and other ailments – Appellant is entitled to relief claimed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. – Anticipatory bail granted to appellant. (Paras 5, 7, 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal challenges order dated 11.03.2024 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.
Result : Criminal Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. M/S. PBA Legal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, A.A.G. Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Mukta Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anuj P. Agarwala, Adv. Mr. Aayush Agarwala, Adv. Ms. Nitya Gupta, Adv. M/S. PBA Legal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K. Parameshwar, A.A.G. Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Appellant cites advanced age, health issues, and lack of summons; State opposes based on the appellant's failure to honor previous undertakings to surrender. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
3. The court observed that the appellant was not summoned during the investigation, despite the issuance of non-bailable warrants and failure to surrender. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. Entitlement to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code is determined by the overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 12 )
5. Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside; anticipatory bail granted subject to security, sureties, and cooperation with the investigation. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
6. What factors may the court consider when granting anticipatory bail despite a failure to surrender?
The court may consider the overall conspectus of the facts and circumstances, including whether the accused was actually summoned by the investigating agency during the course of the investigation. (Para 11 , 12 )
7. Does the issuance of non-bailable warrants automatically preclude the grant of anticipatory bail?
No, while the court takes note of non-bailable warrants and the failure to act on previous statements to surrender, such factors do not automatically preclude relief if the overall circumstances justify it. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
8. How does the lack of summons during an investigation impact an application for anticipatory bail?
The fact that an appellant was not summoned during the investigation is a significant consideration that may weigh in favor of granting anticipatory bail. (Para 11 , 12 )
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the order dated 11.03.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 1316/2024.
3. Apprehending arrest in connection with one of the crimes registered pursuant to FIR No. 217 of 2008 lodged with Pilkhuwa Police Station, District-Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 7/13(i)D read with Section 13(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant preferred an application before the High Court seeking anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).
4. Said application for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the High Court vide impugned order dated 11.03.2024. Hence, the instant appeal has been preferred.
5. By order dated 11.07.2024, while issuing notice, this Court granted interim protection from arrest in favour of the appellant, subject to the appellant joining the investigation.
6. We have heard learned senior counsel in support of the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent-state.
7. During the course of submissions, learned senior counsel pointed out that the appellant has never been summoned during the course of investigation that he is now over 80 years of age and is suffering from dementia and other ailments and at this stage, he may be summoned for the trial, which would cause undue prejudice to him. Hence, anticipatory bail could not have been rejected by the District Court as well as the High Court. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and relief may be granted to him.
8. Learned senior counsel also brought to our notice that in the State of Uttar Pradesh till the year 2019, the relief of Anticipatory Bail was not available whereas the FIR in the instant case is dated 04.04.2008. Hence, till the year 2019, the appellant could not have availed of the relief of pre-arrest bail.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State brought to our notice the fact that on earlier occasions too, the appellant had submitted that he would surrender and seek regular bail but this has not done so. Therefore, at this stage, the undertaking(s) given by the appellant to seek regular bail cannot be brushed aside and relief of Anticipatory Bail may not be granted to him.
10. That Non Bailable Warrant and Process under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. have also been issued as against the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut.
11. We have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar in light of the material on record. What is of significance is the fact that during the course of investigation, the appellant had not been summoned at all and in the circumstances, possibly for the said reason. The appellant did not also act upon the statements made by him before the High Court and the District Court that he would surrender and seek regular bail.
12. However, taking note of the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, the appellant is entitled to the relief claimed under Section 438 of the Code.
13. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the High Court dated 11.03.2024. We direct that in the event of arrest of the appellant, the Arresting Officer shall release the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing cash security in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two like sureties.
14. It is directed that the appellant shall extend complete cooperation in the ensuing investigation. The appellant shall not misuse his liberty and shall not in any way influence the witnesses or tamper with the material on record.
15. With the aforesaid directions, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
