Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.[21] the High Court had directed that considering the nature of the allegation and the evidence collected in the case-diary, the petitioner shall surrender before the competent court and shall apply for regular bail and the same shall be considered upon furnishing necessary bail bond. The said order was challenged before this Court. The two-Judge Bench was constrained to observe:-

“It is the duty of the superior courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law. We are of the convinced opinion that the observations made by the learned Single Judge while dealing with second application under Section 438 CrPC were not at all warranted under any circumstance as it was neither in consonance with the language employed in Section 438 CrPC nor in accord with the established principles of law relating to grant of anticipatory bail. We may reiterate that the said order has been interpreted by this Court as an order only issuing a direction to the accused to surrender, but as we find, it has really created colossal dilemma in the mind of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. We are pained to say that passing of these kind of orders has become quite frequent and the sagacious saying, “a stitch in time saves nine” may be an apposite reminder now. We painfully part with the case by saying so.”

18. At this juncture, we are obliged to refer to the decision in Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.[22] . In the said judgment, the Court was dealing with the power of the High Court of Allahabad pertaining to grant of pre-arrest bail in exercise of extraordinary or inherent jurisdiction and it is significant, for in the State of Uttar Pradesh Section 438 CrPC has been deleted by the State Legislature. Be it noted that constitutional validity of the said deletion was challenged before the Constitution Bench in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab[23] wherein it has been held that deletion of the application of Section 438 CrPC in the State of Uttar Pradesh is constitutional. The Constitution Bench has ruled held that claim for pre-arrest protection is neither a statutory nor a right guaranteed under Article 14, Article 19 or Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The larger Bench has further observed thus:-

23. We have referred to the authority in Hema Mishra (supra) as that specifically deals with the case that came from the State of Uttar Pradesh where Section 438 CrPC has been deleted. It has concurred with the view expressed in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (supra). The said decision, needless to say, has to be read in the context of State of Uttar Pradesh. We do not intend to elaborate the said principle as that is not necessary in this case. What needs to be stated here is that the States where Section 438 CrPC has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the High Court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint. We may hasten to clarify that the Court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, has the jurisdiction to quash the investigation and may pass appropriate interim orders as thought apposite in law, but it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order of the present nature while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation. This kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly. It has no sanction in law. The Courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay.

24. It has come to the notice of the Court that in certain cases, the High Courts, while dismissing the application under Section 482 CrPC are passing orders that if the accused-petitioner surrenders before the trial magistrate, he shall be admitted to bail on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and appropriate to be imposed by the concerned Magistrate. Sometimes it is noticed that in a case where sessions trial is warranted, directions are issued that on surrendering before the concerned trial judge, the accused shall be enlarged on bail. Such directions would not commend acceptance in light of the ratio in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi (supra), Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), etc., for they neither come within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor Section 482 CrPC nor Section 438 CrPC. This Court in Ranjit Singh (supra) had observed that the sagacious saying “a stitch in time saves nine” may be an apposite reminder and this Court also painfully so stated.