Back
NAVIN CHAWLA
Sharvan Jha – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Navin Chawla, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed under Section 482 and 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, `Cr.P.C.') seeking cancellation of the purported anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no. 2 in FIR No.943/2021 registered at Police Station: Burari, North, Delhi under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, `IPC') by the Order dated 05.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, Central District, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as `Additional Sessions Judge') in Bail No. 358/2022 (hereinafter referred to as `Impugned Order').
2. In spite of service of notice on the respondent no. 2, none is appearing for the respondent no. 2.
3. The Impugned Order reads as under:
"It is submitted by the counsel for accused that as now he has joined the investigation and even cooperated with the investigation.
On the other hand, it is submitted by the IO that earlier the seller did not properly sell the property in question to such applicant Amit Bhardwaj as per investigation carried out so far. But at the same time, IO states that he does not need custodial interrogation of present accused and he does not feel to arrest of such accu
The court clarified the interpretation of the Impugned Order and the inherent powers of the court in granting relief in anticipatory bail cases.
Order of grant of anticipatory bail without sufficient and reasonable opportunity to investigating agency to file objections cannot be sustained.
The seriousness of the offence under Section 395 of the IPC may warrant custodial interrogation, influencing the decision on anticipatory bail applications.
The main legal point established is that the applicant's apprehension of arrest was valid, and the court emphasized the importance of considering applications for bail on merits, regardless of the ac....
(1) Any interpretation of provisions of Section 438, Cr.P.C. has to take into consideration fact that grant or rejection of application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. has direct bearing on fundamental ri....
Anticipatory bail petitions are maintainable for offences with a penalty of up to seven years, and jurisdictional courts must adjudicate these applications rather than merely disposing them without c....
Anticipatory bail – Specious reason of change in circumstances cannot be invoked for successive anticipatory bail applications, once it is rejected by a speaking order and that too by same Judge.
The court emphasized the need for tangible grounds for anticipatory bail and the duty to balance individual freedom and police investigation rights.
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
