Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"24. Another judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [SanjayChandra v. CBI, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 2365] decided on 23-5-2011 supports the submission raised by the learned Additional Solicitor General that power under Section 88 CrPC, the word "may" used in Section 88 CrPC is not mandatory and is a matter of judicial discretion. Paras 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment are to the following effect: (SCC OnLine Del) "20. Learned Shri Ram Jethmalani and learned Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Advocates appearing for accused Sanjay Chandra, learned Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Senior Advocate appearing for accused Vinod Goenka, learned Shri Soli Sorabjee and learned Shri Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocates appearing for accused Gautam Doshi, learned Shri Rajiv Nayar, Senior Advocate appearing for accused Hari Nair and learned Shri Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Senior Advocate appearing for accused Surendra Pipara, at the outset, have contended that the order of learned Special Judge dated 20-4-2011 rejecting the bail of the petitioners is violative of the mandate of Section 88 CrPC. It is contended that admittedly the petitioners were neither arrested during investigation nor were they produced in custody along with the charge-sheet as envisaged under Section 170 CrPC. Therefore, the trial court was supposed to release the petitioners on bail by seeking bonds with or without sureties in view of Section 88 CrPC. Thus, it is urged that on this count alone, the petitioners are entitled to bail.