Back
VIPIN SANGHI, MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Saubhagya Bhagat – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
The question which falls for consideration by this Larger Bench is whether an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after charge sheet has been filed in the Court?
2. It transpires that a learned Single Judge of this Court had referred the aforesaid question to a Larger Bench vide order dated 17.08.2022. The said question was answered in the affirmative by a Division Bench vide order dated 7.9.2022. Learned Single Judge, however, was of the opinion that the issues raised in the order of reference have not been considered and then the question was again referred to Larger Bench vide order dated 28.9.2022, passed in ABA/76/2021 and connected matters. Thus, the issue is now before a Full Bench.
3. Since the question was earlier answered by a Division Bench, therefore, before proceeding in the matter, it would be worthwhile to peruse the second order of reference dated 28.9.2022, which is extracted below:
“Whether an application for anticipatory bail is maintainable after the charge sheet has been filed in the court?”
2. While making the reference, this Bench ha
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 8 Supreme 353: This case explicitly states that the doctrine of ‘per incuriam’ is strictly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta, and emphasizes that judgments passed in ignorance of or without considering statutory provisions or binding precedents are not good law and ought to be ignored. This indicates that any decision previously passed in ignorance of relevant law may be overruled or treated as bad law, but this case itself is establishing the principle rather than being overruled.
No other case in the list explicitly states that it has been overruled or reversed. However, the case HDFC Bank Ltd. VS J. J. Mannan @ J. M. John Paul - 2009 8 Supreme 363, which states that "No blanket order can be passed u/s 438 of crpc to prevent the accused from being arrested at all," appears to challenge or limit the scope of earlier broad interpretations of Section 438 Cr.P.C. This could suggest a judicial tendency to restrict or refine earlier favorable interpretations, but without explicit mention of overrule, it cannot be definitively categorized as bad law.
[Followed / Affirmed Treatment]
Ravindra Saxena VS State of Rajasthan - 2009 8 Supreme 225: Emphasizes the purpose of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the importance of personal liberty, aligning with the fundamental principles of anticipatory bail.
Bharat Chaudhary VS State Of Bihar - 2003 7 Supreme 224: States that the fact of cognizance or charge-sheet filing does not prevent granting anticipatory bail, reflecting a consistent judicial stance that anticipatory bail is available in appropriate cases.
Sanjay Chandra VS CBI - 2011 8 Supreme 270: Discusses factors to consider in bail, including seriousness and severity, aligning with established principles.
State Of U. P. THROUGH CBI VS Amarmani Tripathi - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1239: Highlights that bail should be granted judiciously, consistent with standard judicial approach.
Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2022 7 Supreme 641: Details procedural considerations for bail applications, reflecting procedural consistency.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS State of Maharashtra - 2010 8 Supreme 353: Affirms the purpose of Section 438 Cr.P.C., emphasizing its use to prevent unjust deprivation of liberty, consistent with its legislative intent.
: Clarifies that anticipatory bail can be granted even when a serious offense charge is added after a long period, aligning with flexible judicial interpretation.
Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative . . . Appellant Bank Maryadit VS Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 238: Describes the appointment process of CEOs in cooperative banks, consistent with RBI regulations.
State of A. P. VS Challa Ramkrishna Reddy - 2000 4 Supreme 742: Affirms that the Crown is answerable to the people and emphasizes the importance of statutes and constitutional provisions, consistent with constitutional law principles.
SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2014 3 Supreme 285: Clarifies procedural aspects of Section 437, consistent with statutory interpretation.
: Clarifies that anticipatory bail can continue till the end of trial, aligning with judicial practice.
MAHDOOM BAVA VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2023 2 Supreme 707: States that anticipatory bail can be granted where custodial interrogation is not required, consistent with legal standards.
State Of U. P. THROUGH CBI VS Amarmani Tripathi - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1239: Reiterates the importance of factors influencing bail, consistent with established jurisprudence.
Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2022 7 Supreme 641: Emphasizes timely disposal of bail applications, aligning with judicial efficiency.
Kanwar Singh VS Delhi Administration - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 183: Interprets "abandoned" as "left unattended," consistent with statutory interpretation.
Hindustan Zinc LTD. VS Friends Coal Carbonisation - 2006 4 Supreme 120: Discusses judicial review of arbitration awards, consistent with arbitration law.
SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2021 7 Supreme 261: Reiterates that seriousness of charge and severity of punishment are key factors in bail, consistent with case law.
ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 5 Supreme 324: Criticizes the attitude of arrest before investigation, aligning with constitutional protections of liberty.
[Distinguished / Clarified Treatment]
Narsingh Das Tapadia VS Goverdhan Das Partani - 2000 0 Supreme(Ker) 426: Clarifies the distinction between taking cognizance and filing a complaint, aligning with procedural law.
Managing Director Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative . . . Appellant Bank Maryadit VS Zila Sahkari Kendriya Bank Maryadit - 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 238: Details appointment procedures, consistent with RBI regulations.
Kanwar Singh VS Delhi Administration - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 183: Clarifies the meaning of "abandoned" in a specific context.
Rao Harnarain Singh, Sheoji Singh VS State - 1957 0 Supreme(P&H) 90: Discusses bail in serious offenses but does not specify whether it is followed, overruled, or criticized. S. R. SUKUMAR VS S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM - 2015 5 Supreme 695: Discusses amendments and corrections; treatment status unclear. Bachan Singh VS S. K. Sinha - 2006 0 Supreme(P&H) 1189: States courts' ability to issue directions for retrospective promotion; no treatment indication. Pepsi Foods VS Special Judicial Magistrate - 1997 9 Supreme 279: Discusses discharge and quashing proceedings, no explicit treatment. Bhushan Kumar VS State (Nct of Delhi) - 2012 2 Supreme 699: Procedural note about summons, no treatment. Kanwar Singh VS Delhi Administration - 1964 0 Supreme(SC) 183: Interpretation of "abandoned" is procedural and not treatment-related. : Details sexual assault acts, no treatment indication. : Clarifies scope of anticipatory bail, no explicit treatment of prior case law. HDFC Bank Ltd. VS J. J. Mannan @ J. M. John Paul - 2009 8 Supreme 363: States that blanket orders under Section 438 are not permissible; appears to limit scope but not explicitly overruled. Hindustan Zinc LTD. VS Friends Coal Carbonisation - 2006 4 Supreme 120: Judicial review of arbitration awards, no treatment indication. SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2021 7 Supreme 261: Similar to other bail cases, treatment status unclear. ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 5 Supreme 324: Criticizes attitude to arrest, no explicit treatment status.
Rao Harnarain Singh, Sheoji Singh VS State - 1957 0 Supreme(P&H) 90, S. R. SUKUMAR VS S. SUNAAD RAGHURAM - 2015 5 Supreme 695, Bachan Singh VS S. K. Sinha - 2006 0 Supreme(P&H) 1189, Pepsi Foods VS Special Judicial Magistrate - 1997 9 Supreme 279, Bhushan Kumar VS State (Nct of Delhi) - 2012 2 Supreme 699, , , HDFC Bank Ltd. VS J. J. Mannan @ J. M. John Paul - 2009 8 Supreme 363, Hindustan Zinc LTD. VS Friends Coal Carbonisation - 2006 4 Supreme 120, SATENDER KUMAR ANTIL VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION - 2021 7 Supreme 261, ARNESH KUMAR VS STATE OF BIHAR - 2014 5 Supreme 324: These cases do not explicitly state whether they have been overruled, reversed, or criticized in subsequent jurisprudence. Their treatment remains uncertain based solely on the provided text.
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
