1. Appeal against High Court order declining to quash FIR registered under Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 180
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
ANURAG DUBEY ALIAS DABBAN - Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 277 Of 2025 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 14624 Of 2024)
Decided On : 20-01-2025
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR, Mr. Sarwa Nand Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. A.A.G., Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv., Mr. Yasharth Kant, AOR, Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv., Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Adv., Mr. Abhas Upmanyu, Adv., Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Nagar, Adv., Mr. Sajal Sinha, Adv.
For the Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Chaudhary, AOR, Mr. Sarwa Nand Dubey, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. A.A.G., Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv., Mr. Yasharth Kant, AOR, Ms. Sonal Kushwah, Adv., Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan, Adv., Mr. Abhas Upmanyu, Adv., Mr. Arjun Singh Bhati, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Nagar, Adv., Mr. Sajal Sinha, Adv.
The court emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to comply with investigation requirements and appear before Trial Courts, clarifying conditions for anticipatory bail and addressing misuse of interim bail.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 - Appeal against High Court order declining to quash FIR - Court found no case for quashing the FIR at this stage - Directions issued for the petitioner to join investigation and stay on arrest granted - Interim bail conditions clarified. (Paras 2, 3, 4, 8, 14)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory bail - Conditions for granting anticipatory bail discussed - Misuse of interim bail noted - Court emphasized the necessity for the petitioner to appear before Trial Courts. (Paras 8, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appeal was against the High Court's order declining to quash an FIR registered under various sections of the IPC. The petitioner had multiple criminal cases against him and failed to appear before the Trial Courts despite interim bail.
Findings of Court:
The Court directed the petitioner to appear before the Trial Courts and clarified that failure to do so would result in withdrawal of interim protection against arrest.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the FIR and the conditions for anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner must comply with the investigation process and appear in court, emphasizing the importance of not misusing interim bail.
Result: Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. State contended the appellant failed to join the investigation and misused interim protection by not appearing before Trial Courts in multiple cases. (Para 4 , 7 )
3. Failure to appear before Trial Courts despite a stay on arrest is an unjustified misuse of the concession of interim bail. (Para 8 )
4. Interim protection from arrest does not absolve an accused of the obligation to appear before Trial Courts to proceed with legal trials. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; appellant directed to surrender; fresh FIRs require prior permission of the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does a stay on arrest excuse an accused from appearing before the Trial Court?
No. The court held that there is no justification for an accused to avoid appearing before Trial Courts when their arrest has been stayed, and such conduct constitutes a misuse of the concession of interim bail. (Para 8 )
7. What is the consequence of failing to comply with court-ordered surrender after interim protection is granted?
If the accused fails to surrender before the Trial Court as directed, the interim protection granted against arrest is deemed to be withdrawn, and necessary legal consequences shall follow. (Para 12 )
8. Under what conditions can fresh FIRs be registered against an individual granted specific interim protection by the court?
The court directed that if any fresh complaint is received disclosing the prima facie commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR shall only be registered with the prior permission of the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge. (Para 13 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant appeal is directed against the order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, declining to quash the Case Crime No. 137/2024, registered at Police Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. When the Special Leave Petition came up for hearing on 24.10.2024, the following order was passed:
1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that no case for quashing of the FIR Case Crime No.137/2024, registered at Police Station Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad, under Sections 323, 386, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is made out, at this stage. The relief qua the quashing of the FIR is, accordingly, declined.
2. However, keeping in view the cases registered against the petitioner in the past and the nature of allegations contained in the subject-FIR, let notice be issued as to why anticipatory bail be not granted to the petitioner, returnable on 28.11.2024.
3. Meanwhile, the arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR Case Crime No.137/2024 shall remain stayed subject to his joining and fully cooperating with the ongoing investigation.”
4. Since the State of Uttar Pradesh took a categorical stand that the appellant had failed to join investigation, this Court, with a view to enable the investigating agency to complete the ongoing investigation, issued following directions on 28.11.2024:
“3. In order to ensure that the ongoing investigation is taken to its logical conclusion without compromising with the liberty of the petitioner, the following directions are issued:
(i) The petitioner has already furnished his Mobile No.9415553330 to the SHO Police Station, Maudarwaja, District Farrukhabad. The said mobile number shall remain 24 hours on.
(ii) The Investigating Officer, in any of the FIRs, may inform the time, date and place to the petitioner to join the investigation.
(iii) The petitioner shall abide by the notice that may be received on his Mobile Number from the Investigating Officer(s).
4. However, in no circumstances, the petitioner shall be taken into police custody either in the cases already registered against him or in a fresh case that may be registered against him, without prior permission of this Court.”
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The complainant, Shakuntla Devi, has also filed the counter affidavit. Some additional documents have also been placed on record.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, besides learned counsel for the complainant.
7. There seems to be no dispute that there are 22 criminal cases registered against the appellant in different Police Stations. List of those cases has been handed over by learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh during the course of hearing and the same is taken on record. We are informed that in cases at Serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the list, investigation is complete, but charge sheet could not be filed due to interim directions issued by this Court in a connected petition filed by the appellant’s brother. In rest of the cases, charge sheets have been filed. Learned senior counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, however, points out that despite the protection granted by this Court, the appellant has not appeared before the Trial Courts and proceedings to declare him an absconder have been initiated in the following cases:
1. FIR No. 557/2024, Police Station Kotwali, Farrukhabad, in which the appellant has not appeared before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad.
2. FIR No. 661/2022, Police Station Kotwali Chhibramau District Kannauj, in which, though the arrest of the appellant has been stayed by this Court, but he is not appearing before the ADJ-5, Kannauj.
3. FIR No. 258/2023, Police Station Mohammadabad, District Fatehgarh, in which the appellant has moved an
