1. Accused facing charges under Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC seeking anticipatory bail after the filing of the final report. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 1460
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, R. BANUMATHI, JJ.
Amar Nath Neogi - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1758 of 2017 (@ Special Leave Petition (CRL) Nos. 7487 of 2017)
Decided On : 10-10-2017
Important Points
The court considered the completion of investigation, the appellant's senior citizen status, and non-Government service in deciding the surrender and bail conditions.
Subject
Criminal Law - Bail and Surrender
Act Referred
Headnote
Anticipatory Bail - Senior Citizen - Surrender and Bail Conditions
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an accused in a criminal case, sought anticipatory bail despite the completion of the investigation. The appellant is a senior citizen and was never in Government service.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the appellant to surrender before the Court of competent jurisdiction and granted bail upon surrender with specified conditions.
Issues: Applicability of anticipatory bail after completion of investigation, consideration of appellant's senior citizen status, and absence of Government service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the completion of investigation, the appellant's senior citizen status, and non-Government service in deciding the surrender and bail conditions.
Final Decision: The appellant was directed to surrender before the Court of competent jurisdiction and granted bail upon surrender with specified conditions.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv., P. Vinay Kumar, Ankur Goel, Manmilan Sidhu, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For the Appellants :Sachin Datta, Sr. Adv., P. Vinay Kumar, Ankur Goel, Manmilan Sidhu, Ms. Roopali Chaturvedi, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. The court observed that the investigation was complete and the final report filed, questioning the necessity of anticipatory bail for the appellant. (Para 2 )
3. Anticipatory bail is generally inappropriate once the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed in the competent court. (Para 2 )
4. Appellant directed to surrender before the competent court within two weeks, with subsequent release on bail upon executing a bond and providing sureties. (Para 3 )
5. What is the court's view on seeking anticipatory bail after a final report has been filed?
The court indicated that seeking anticipatory bail is not justifiable once the investigation is complete and the final report has been filed, directing the accused to surrender to the court instead. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant is an accused in Case No.680/2015 corresponding to G.R. No.4839/2015 under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. We are informed that the investigation has already been completed. We also found from the records that the appellant is a senior citizen, having crossed the age of 65 years. We are also informed that he was never in Government service. We fail to understand as to why the appellant prayed for anticipatory bail in a case where final report has been filed.
3. In the above circumstances, we dispose of this appeal as follows :
The appellant shall surrender before the Court of competent jurisdiction where the final report has been filed, within two weeks from today.
On such surrender, the appellant shall be released on bail on his executing a bond to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two solvent sureties to the equal amount.
4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
5. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
6. There shall be no orders as to costs.
