Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 1366

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Deepak Aggarwal - Appellant
Vs.
Balwan Singh & Anr. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.5456 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No.17504 Of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No.5457 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 16646 Of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No.5458 Of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 16837 Of 2024) With Criminal Appeal No.5459 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl) No. 17505 Of 2024)
Decided On : 18-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naveen Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Parminder Singh, Adv. Mr. Aroon Menon, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Manavi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Nilay Gupta, Adv. Mr. Varun Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Sham Diwan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Airi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Tanvi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sabharwal, AOR Mr. Yash Dubey, Adv. Mr. Mekala Ganesh Kumar Reddy, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nema, Adv. Mr. Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Saifuddin Shams, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR Mr. Anmol Kheta, Adv. Ms. Shabnam Shams, Adv. Mr. Anup Kumar Pandey, Adv. Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. Aakash Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain, Adv. Mr. Aditya Dahiya, Adv. Mr. Rn Mahalawat, Adv. Mr. Atmaram N S Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Choudhary, AOR Ms. S.s. Rebello, Adv. Ms. Deepti Arya, Adv. Ms. Arzu Paul, Adv. Ms. Manisha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Dahiya, Adv. Mrs. Manita Mahlawat, Adv. Mr. Vishal Mahajan, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Dr. Sukhdev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Venkatesh Rajput, Adv.

The Supreme Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be misconstrued as a norm and cautioned against granting ad interim relief that essentially provides final outcomes pending full hearings.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120 B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) - Anticipatory Bail - Accused granted ad interim relief by High Court pending investigation under FIR for serious accusations - Supreme Court stays operation of the impugned order due to concern over finality of interim relief granted by the High Court. (Paras 4, 14, 15)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - Court's discretion - Issuance of interim relief should not effectively provide final relief before full hearings - Caution urged in granting anticipatory bail to prevent miscarriage of justice. (Paras 16)

Facts of the case:
The appeal arises from an order where the High Court granted anticipatory bail in response to serious charges including misappropriation against public servants and a private individual. Original informant challenges this order.

Findings of Court:
The nature of ad interim relief was problematic and effectively served to preemptively protect from prosecution rather than merely offering necessary interim comfort.

Issues: The main issues pertained to the appropriateness of the ad interim relief granted and its implications on ongoing investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: A clear distinction was made that anticipatory bail should not be viewed as the norm and should be judiciously considered to protect against potential evidence tampering or disruption of investigations.

Result: Appeals allowed, operation of High Court order stayed.

Table of Content
1. common issues related to multiple petitions. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. challenge against high court's anticipatory bail order. (Para 5 , 6 , 10)
3. the court discusses the nature and implications of the high court's ad-interim relief. (Para 7 , 11)
4. court's disapproval of ad-interim relief types. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
5. clarification on law regarding anticipatory bail. (Para 16)
6. directions for future hearing of bail applications. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

ORDER :

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned petitions are same and they all arise from a self same First Information Report those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.17504 of 2024 is treated as the lead matter. The order passed in this matter shall govern the disposal of the other connected petitions.

3. Leave granted.

4. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Hayana at Chandigarh dated 08.11.2024 in CRM-M No. 52981/2024 by which the High Court in an application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 239 dated 11.07.2024 registered with police station Sohna, District Gurugram, Haryana for the offences punishable under Sections 409 , 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120 B of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Sections 7 and 13(1) (b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the “1988 Act”), issued notice to the State and in the meantime granted ad interim relief saying that the accused shall join the investigation and in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the investigation officer subject to the conditions as provided under Section 482 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short the “ BNSS , 2023”),

5. The Original first informant being aggrieved by the grant of ad-interim relief is here before this Court seeking to challenge the impugned order passed by the High Court.

6. This Court issued notice vide order dated 09-12-2024 and stayed the operation of the impugned order passed by the High Court granting ad-interim protection to the accused.

7. We have heard Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mr. Naveen Pahwa, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant(original first informant/complainant). On the other hand, we have heard Mr.Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Mr. Sham Diwan, Ms. Vibha Dutta Makhija and Mr. Atmaram NS Nadkarni, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents (accused persons).

8. It appears that a first information report came to be lodged at the police station, referred to above for the offences as alleged. It also appears that some public servants have also been arrayed as accused in the F.I.R. We do not propose to look into the nature of the allegations levelled in the FIR or to put in other words even the exact case of the prosecution as the matter is at large before the High Court.

9. At the same time, we should also not overlook the fact that there are allegations of criminal misappropriation, cheating and forgery.

10. The matter seems to be at the stage of investigation. As the accused persons named in the F.I.R. apprehended arrest, they all prayed for anticipatory bail first before the Sessions Court and on being denied anticipatory bail, they are now before the High Court.

11. The High Court has issued notice to the State and has passed an ad-interim order which reads thus”-

“In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation. In the event of arrest, he shall be on ad interim bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions as provided under Section 482(2) of the BNNS, 2023.”

12. We take notice of the fact that in all other connected matters the High Court has said that till the anticipatory bail applications are decided the accused persons shall not be arrested.

13. What weighed with us in issuing notice and staying the operation of the impugned order refe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document