Back
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Sunil Kallani – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. While hearing this anticipatory bail application, the question of law arose whether an anticipatory bail application would be maintainable by an accused who is already arrested and is in judicial custody in relation to another FIR registered against him for the offences mentioned therein.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor had advanced their submissions.
3. It would therefore be apposite to first note down the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.”). Sections 41, 46, 81, 105 and Section 438 Cr.P.C. are as under:
(1) Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person:
(a) who commits, in the presence of a police officer, a cognizable offence.
(b) against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years whether with or without fine, if the following conditions are satis
None of the listed cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. There are no clear references or language suggesting that any of these decisions have been discredited or invalidated by subsequent rulings. Therefore, based on the information provided, there are no cases identified as bad law.
Followed:
None explicitly indicated. The summaries do not specify that any case has been explicitly followed in later judgments.
Distinguished:
None explicitly indicated. There is no mention of any case being distinguished or set apart from others.
Criticized or Questioned:
Dhanraj Aswani VS Amar S. Mulchandani - 2024 7 Supreme 1: The case discusses the High Court of Rajasthan's decision in Sunil Kallani (supra). While it references Sunil Kallani, it does not state that the decision was criticized or questioned; it merely notes the High Court of Rajasthan's view. No explicit criticism or questioning is evident.
SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2014 3 Supreme 285: The case discusses legal principles regarding Section 437 and related procedural aspects. The language appears to be explanatory and does not indicate criticism or questioning of prior decisions.
Sushila Aggarwal and others VS State (NCT of Delhi) - 2020 2 Supreme 65: The case provides detailed guidance on anticipatory bail, its scope, and procedural nuances. There is no indication that this ruling has been criticized or questioned.
State Of W. B. VS Dinesh Dalmia - 2007 4 Supreme 136: The case clarifies the concept of notional surrender and its effect on custody calculations. It appears to be a standalone clarification without indication of criticism or questioning.
Reversed or Overruled:
None of the case summaries mention reversal, overruling, or being overruled.
Abrogated:
No mention of abrogation or invalidation of these decisions.
All cases appear to be presented as authoritative statements or clarifications without explicit indication of subsequent treatment. Their treatment patterns are not explicitly stated, and there is no clear evidence suggesting they have been overruled, criticized, or otherwise discredited. Due to the lack of such explicit information, these cases are categorized as uncertain regarding their current legal standing based solely on the provided summaries.
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
