Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Harmeet Singh - Appellant
Versus
State NCT Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
Bail Application No. 4172 of 2021 and Crl.M.A. 18800 of 2021 with Bail Application No. 4173 of 2021, Crl. M.A. 18801 of 2021, Bail Application No. 4174 of 2021 and Crl. M.A. 18802 of 2021
Decided On : 25-11-2021
BAIL APPLICATION - Anticipatory Bail - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420/379/34 - ILR (1990) 3 DEL 203, 19 (1981) DLT300, 18 (1980) DLT 405, Bail Appln. 393 of 2019, Bail Appln.394 of 2019, Bail Appln. 1937 of 2019, Bail Appl. Nos.3942/2021 & 3943/2021 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. and the jurisdiction of the High Court or Court of Sessions to grant anticipatory bail, emphasizing that no restrictions for grant of anticipatory bail have been imposed in Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. The court also referred to previous verdicts to support the view that the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail by a Court cannot be curtailed by the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted the right to personal freedom and the need to save the beneficial provisions contained in Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The court rejected the contention that the applications for bail were not maintainable and emphasized that the applicants could seek redressal before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought anticipatory bail or transit bail for a period of 30 days in relation to an unknown FIR registered at PS Kapurthala, Punjab for the offences allegedly punishable under Sections 420/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the prayer made by the applicants seeking the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail, emphasizing that the applicants could seek redressal before the Court having territorial jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicants were entitled to the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail in relation to the unknown FIR registered at PS Kapurthala, Punjab.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that no restrictions for grant of anticipatory bail have been imposed in Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. and that the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail by a Court cannot be curtailed by the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The judgment highlighted the right to personal freedom and the need to save the beneficial provisions contained in Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The applications for bail were disposed of accordingly, and the prayer made by the applicants seeking the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail was not granted.
ORDER
CRL.M.A. 18800/2021 (Ex.)
CRL.M.A. 18801/2021 (Ex.)
CRL.M.A. 18802/2021 (Ex.)
Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The applications stand disposed of.
BAIL APPLN. 4172/2021
BAIL APPLN. 4173/2021
BAIL APPLN. 4174/2021
1. The applicants, vide the present applications seek the grant of anticipatory bail or transit bail for a period of 30 days in relation to an unknown FIR stated to be registered at PS Kapurthala, Punjab for the offences allegedly punishable under Sections 420/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 submitting to the effect that they apprehend arrest, in as much as, they have been called upon to put in appearance on 27.11.2021 as per information received by the lawyer on 22.11.2021. It has inter alia been submitted on behalf of the applicants that the atmosphere is very hostile and that the counsel for the applicants has not even been supplied with the copy of the complaint.
2. A catena of verdicts is sought to be relied upon on behalf of the applicants to the effect:-
(i) Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration and Others, ILR (1990) 3 DEL 203;
(ii) Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 19 (1981) DLT300;
(iii) Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 18 (1980) DLT 405;
(iv) Devender Garg Vs. State in Bail Appln. 393 of 2019, judgment dated 15.02.2019;
(v) Satish Garg Vs. State in Bail Appln.394 of 2019;
(vi) Surya Pratap Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka & Anr. in Bail Appln. 1937 of 2019, judgment dated 07.08.2019.
3. with inter alia reliance also placed on behalf of the applicants on the verdict dated 03.11.2021 in Bail Appl. Nos.3942/2021 & 3943/2021 of this Court whereby, the transit bails have been granted.
4. On behalf of the State of the NCT of Delhi, the learned APP for the State submits that the details of the allegations against the applicants be allowed to be supplied to them and beyond that the applicants may seek redressal before the Court of the concerned territorial jurisdiction.
5. On behalf of the respondent nos. 2 & 3, the learned SC places reliance on the order dated 14.06.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sandeep Sunilkumar Lohariya Vs. Jawahar Chelaram Bijlani @ Suresh Bijlani & Ors." in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).4829/2013, wherein there are observations inter alia to the effect that it was difficult to comprehend under what provisions and under what authority of law such an application seeking grant of transit bail had even registered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. There are observations however in the first paragraph of this order which indicate that no notice had also been issued to the State of Maharashtra where the case had been registered under Sections 302/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 & 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 in relation to an offence at Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra.
6. Significantly, the said order indicates also that the accused had applied for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Bombay which had been rejected vide order dated 25.02.2013, where after, the application for anticipatory bail in the nature of a transit bail had been filed before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The said facts put forth through this order relied upon on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 are at complete variance to the facts put forth in the instant case.
7. As regards the submission qua the maintainability of such an application which is opposed on behalf of the respondent nos.2 & 3 as well as on behalf of the complainant by the learned counsel who is present, it is essential to observe that in view of the verdict of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in "Capt. Satish Kumar Sharma Vs. Delhi Administration and Others", ILR (1990) 3 DEL 203 and the consistent view of this Court in "Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 19 (1981) DLT 300; "Pritam Singh Vs. State of Punjab" 18 (1980) DLT 405; "Devender Garg Vs. State" in Bail Appln.393 of 2019, a judgment dated 15.02.2019; "Satish Garg Vs. State" in Bail Appln.394 of 2019 and "Surya
The judgment established the principle that the grant of transit bail or anticipatory bail by a Court cannot be curtailed by the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the right to per....
(1) Anticipatory bail – Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify offence or offences in respect of which alone order will be effective – Blanket order of anticipatory bail is bo....
The court can grant anticipatory bail even when non-bailable warrants are issued, particularly when additional graver charges arise, emphasizing exceptional circumstances and process respect.
The need to consider the applicant's apprehension of arrest and grant relief to enable the applicant to approach the competent Court for seeking appropriate relief.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in granting anticipatory bail for offences committed ou....
Police has no power to arrest accused in a complaint case unless there is a non-bailable warrant issued by that Court along with summons – If Magistrate orders Police inquiry under Section 202 and as....
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
