1. Petition for anticipatory bail regarding assets disproportionate to known sources of income under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 128
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Musheer Alam – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – Respondent
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 18081 of 2024
Decided On : 17-01-2025
Important Points
Once a charge-sheet is filed and investigation is complete, the accused should be summoned to appear and furnish bail, rather than being formally arrested.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) - Anticipatory bail - The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in connection with a case involving disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.1,50,41,908/- - The court noted that the investigation was complete and a charge-sheet had been filed, leading to the conclusion that the accused should appear before the court and furnish bail - The court criticized the practice of arresting after charge-sheet filing as nonsensical. (Paras 1, 2, 9, 11)
(B) Court's observation on arrest practices - The court observed that once the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet is filed, the accused should be summoned to appear and furnish bail, rather than being formally arrested. (Paras 8, 10)
(B) Court's observation on arrest practices - The court observed that once the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet is filed, the accused should be summoned to appear and furnish bail, rather than being formally arrested. (Paras 8, 10)
Judgement Key Points
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- Once a charge-sheet is filed and the investigation is complete, the accused should be summoned to appear and furnish bail, rather than being formally arrested. [judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
- The petitioner was denied anticipatory bail by the High Court in a case involving disproportionate assets amounting to Rs.1,50,41,908/- under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (!) (!)
- The court criticized the practice of arresting an accused after the charge-sheet has been filed as nonsensical. (!)
- The investigation was concluded with the filing of a charge-sheet in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur. (!)
- During the investigation phase, the Investigating Officer did not deem it fit to arrest the petitioner. (!)
- The CBI Court has taken cognizance of the case and issued summons to the petitioner to appear. (!)
- The court observed that if the Investigating Officer needed to interrogate the petitioner, they should have done so during the investigation itself, making a formal arrest at this stage unnecessary. (!)
- The court ordered the petitioner to appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur, and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the court. (!)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sri Narayan Shukla, Adv. Mr. V Elangovan, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shighra Kumar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sri Narayan Shukla, Adv. Mr. V Elangovan, Adv. Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv. Ms. Anu Gupta, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit K. Singh, AOR Mr. Gautam Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shighra Kumar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Submission regarding the practice of effecting arrest only after the filing of the charge-sheet and judicial cognizance. (Para 8 )
3. The court found the practice of post-charge-sheet arrest illogical and noted that the investigating officer did not find arrest necessary during the investigation. (Para 6 , 8 , 10 )
4. Where investigation is complete and a charge-sheet is filed, the accused should be permitted to appear and furnish bail to the trial court. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petitioner directed to appear before the trial court and furnish bail to its satisfaction. (Para 11 )
6. Is arrest necessary after the investigation is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed?
No. Once the investigation is over and the charge-sheet is filed, the accused should be asked to appear before the concerned court and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. What is the court's view on the practice of arresting an accused only after the court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet?
The court characterized the practice of effecting arrest after the charge-sheet is filed and the court takes cognizance as an unusual practice that makes no sense. (Para 8 )
8. When should an investigating officer effect an arrest for interrogation purposes?
If an investigating officer intends to interrogate a petitioner, the arrest should be carried out during the course of the investigation itself, rather than as a formal arrest after the charge-sheet is filed. (Para 10 )
ORDER
1. The petitioner herein has been denied anticipatory bail by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in connection with case Crime No.320/2020, which has now with the filing of the charge sheet culminated in Sessions Case No. 941/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act, 1988”).
2. It appears from the materials on record that a First Information Report came to be lodged at the Kotwali Police Station, district Barabanki for the offence enumerated above. It is the case of the prosecution that the check period between 2002 and 31-5-2009 revealed that the petitioner herein had assets disproportionate to the tune of Rs.1,50,41,908/- to the known sources of his income.
3. In such circumstances, the Anti Corruption Department, Ayodhya, Faizabad, U.P. decided to proceed against the petitioner.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Mani Tripathi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Akshat Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the State.
5. We take notice of the fact that the investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed in the CBI Court at Gorakhpur.
6. While the investigation was in progress, the Investigating Officer did not deem fit to arrest the petitioner herein.
7. The CBI Court has taken cognizance and has issued summons to the petitioner herein to appear.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there is a practice in the State of Uttar Pradesh that arrest is effected after the charge-sheet is filed and the Court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet. We do not propose to say anything as regards in this unusual practice except that it makes no sense.
9. We are of the view that once the investigation is over and charge-sheet is filed then the accused should be asked to appear before the Court concerned and should furnish bail to the satisfaction of the trial court.
10. If at all, the Investigating Officer wanted to interrogate the petitioner, he could have arrested him during the course of the investigation itself. Now there is no point in making a formal arrest.
11. In such circumstances, referred to above, we order that the petitioner herein shall appear before the CBI Court, Gorakhpur and furnish bail to the satisfaction of the Court.
12. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
