Back
High Court Of Delhi
SATISH KUMAR SHARMA - Appellant
Versus
DELHI ADMINISTRATION - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 265 of 1990
Decided On : 09/11/1990
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 438 - ANTICIPATORY BAIL - JURISDICTION - COURT OF SESSIONS OR HIGH COURT WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION A PERSON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT HE MAY BE ARRESTED ON AN ACCUSATION OF HAVING COMMITTED A NON-BAILABLE OFFENCE, HAS CONCURRENT JURISDICTION TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY BAIL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Member of Parliament, was accused of involvement in a violent incident between Janta Dal and Congress workers. F.I.Rs. were lodged by both parties, and cross cases were registered. The petitioner's name was not mentioned in the F.I.R.s. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner under various sections, including 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and the proceedings in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad-Lucknow Bench. A notice was ordered to be issued by that Court, and further proceedings were stayed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the High Court or the Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, has concurrent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail. The Court further held that the petitioner had reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence in Delhi, and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for anticipatory bail in respect of a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in another State? 2. Whether the petitioner has an alternate remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for anticipatory bail in respect of a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in another State, as Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court or the Court of Sessions within whose territorial jurisdiction a person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. 2. The Court held that the petitioner does not have an alternate remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code, as when there is imminent/urgent threat of deprivation of personal liberty of a citizen, he cannot be asked to avail of the alternate remedies in such a situation as in this process he may actually be arrested and therefore, such remedy will, therefore, neither be adequate nor efficacious. 3. The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the offence, the petitioner's antecedents, and the likelihood of his absconding or tampering with witnesses.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and enlarged the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the criminal case pending in the Court of C.J.M., District Sultanpur, U.P. The Court directed that in the event of his arrest, the petitioner shall be released on his furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the person/officer effecting his arrest for the petitioner's appearance before the concerned court.
( 1 ) TO be heard today with the consent of both the parties.
( 2 ) THE petitioner Captain Satish Kumar Shanna, a resident of Delhi is a member of the Parliament and owes allegiance to Indian National Congress. He actively campaigned in Amethi Parmentary Constituency for Sh. Rajiv Gandhi, for mer Prime Minister of India, during the Parliamentary Elections held in November, 1989 and Sh. Rajiv Gandhi won this, Parliamentary seat by a margin of more than 2,00,000 votes.
( 3 ) SHRI Sanjay Singh, who was earlier a sitting Congress (1) M. L. A. , defected from the party and joined the Janta Dal. On the ticket of Jaata Dal he fought from Amethi Assembly Constituency but lost to the Congress candidate, viz. , Harcharan Singh Yadav by a big margin, with the result, he became very inimical to the petitioner.
( 4 ) ON 23-11-1989 at about 3. 00 P. M. some unfortunate violent incident took place between Janfa Dal and the Congress workers and it appears there was a cross firing in which Shri Sanjay Singh received bullet injuries. F. I. Rs. were lodged by both the parties and cross cases were registered with the police station Munshi Ganj U/s 147, 148. 149 and 307 Indian Penal Code being case Crime No. 182 of 1989 and 182-A of 1989.
( 5 ) F. I. R. Crime No. 182 of 1989 was registered at the instance of Shri Ashish Shukla at about 345 n. m. on 22-11-1989 at P. S. Munshi Ganj in which allegation was that Shri Sanjay Singh fired with his rule as a result of which persons, namely- Manoj Kumar, Satya Narayan Yadav, Sitla Prasad etc. were injured.
( 6 ) F. I. R. Crime No. 182-A of 1989 was registered at aboat 6. 45 A. M. on 23-11-1989 at the instance of Shri Jai Parkash Singh H. C. 24 according to which Shri Sanjay Singh sustained injuries. However, the assailants were unknown. In both the F. I. Rs. the name of the petitioner was not mentioned.
( 7 ) AFTER investigation, first a charge sheet was filed in Court of CJM Sultanpur on 16-2-1990 in case Crime No. 182-A of 1989 U/s 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 504 Indian Penal Code which was followed by two supplementary charge sheets dated 6-4-1990 and 7-5-1990. la all these three charge sheets the petitioner was not chargesheeted although it is stated in the return that the name of the petitioner was mentioned therein as an accused person against whom the investigations were pending. In these charge sheets there were 19 accused persons court whom 15 have already been enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is absolutely no case against him. In fact, no complicity in the crime was alleged against him from November, 1989 1st week of February, 1990. After Shri Sanjay Singh who returned from London after his treatment on 1st February. 1990 at his behest, pressure and undue influence the case against the petitioner was cooked up by the police and C. I. D of U. P. It has been alleged that Sanjay Singh is the brother s son-in-law of Shri V. P. Singh, the present Prime Minister of India and is very close of him; and, as such he is exercising tremendous influence on the Government of U. P. including CID and Police of U. P. as a result thereof he has been able to fabricate a false case against the petitioner after his return from England. As already mentioned, Shri Sanjay Singh is doing so out of political vendetta as he considers the petitioner responsible for his defeat in his Assembly constituency in Amethi. In fact he is determined to humiliate the petitioner by getting him arrested and paraded in the streets.
( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, there is no evidence to connect him with the commission of the crime nor was his name mentioned in the FIR. That is why no charge sheet U/s 173 Criminal Procedure Code. could be submitted in the Court by the police till 21-5-1990 although three charge sheets in the. case were already submitted in the Court by fie police. This case was fabricated at the instance of Shri Sanjay Singh and polic
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
