LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.& ORS

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1027

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, V.S. SIRPURKAR

Case summary

LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.& ORS.pdf

Judgment text

[2009] 4 S. C. R. 1027 LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH __. \ V. STATE OF U. P. & ORS. Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009 MARCH 23, 2009 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ] Bail: . > ~ cognizance has been taken, besides on the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for quashing the first information report - Precedent. Amaravati Vs. State of UP. 2005 Crl. L. J 755 - approved. Joginder Kumar Vs. State of Uf. '°' 1994 Cr. L. J . 1981 relied on. Constitution of India: - -t Articles 226 and 136 - Prayer in writ petition for quashing FIR - Refused by High Court - HELD: On facts, it is not fit case for quashing the FIR - Besides, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken - However.

writ petitioner is granted • time to appear before trial court and to file an application for I bail - If such an application is filed, trial court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the applicant pending final disposal of his bail application. Case Law Reference 2005 Crl. L. J 755 approved para 7 ... t 1994 Cr. L. J. 1981 relied on para 7 CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal ... No. 538 of 2009 From the Judgement and Order dated 03. 09. 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in CMWP No. 13227 of 2007. ~ lmtiaz Ahmed (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), for the Appellant. S. R. Singh, Sandeep Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, for the Respondents. The order of the Court was delivered : ~ ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted. The appeal by Special leave has been filed against the impugned Judgment dl,d 3. 9. 2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellane us Writ Petition No.

1322712007. The aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the F. l. R. in case Crime No. 1133/2007 under Sections 467,468,471,420,409 and + ~. 218 1. P. C. , Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, U. P. By the impugned Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F. l. R. but directed that ifthe appellant surrenders within 10 days, his bail application will be considered and disposed of expeditiously. LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH V. 1029 STATE OF U. P. & ORS. Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed. '\ By an interim order dated 30. 11. 2007 this Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile. We are today informed by Shri S. R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U. P. that charge sheet has been filed and congnizance has been taken and the case is now pending before the trial Court.

In these circumstances, he submitted that we should not exercise our discretion under > Article 136 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F. I. R. f. - Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U. P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amaravati Vs. State of U. P. 2005 Crl. L. J 755 in which a Seven Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Court, if it deems fit in the "' +· facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an F. l. R. of cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U. P. , 1994 Cr. L. J. 1981.

l We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati's ~ case (supra), and we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U. P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U. P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra). Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether . I't to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar's case ,( (supra). ~ Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has 1030 [2009] 4 S. C. R. been taken, and on the facts of this case, in our opinion, this is .. ( not a fit case for quashing the first information report.

The Appeal is dismissed, However, the appellant is granted time to appear 111 before the trial Court on or before 15 April, 2009 and to file an application for bail. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the appellant pending the final disposal of his bail application. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to all Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges in the State. R. P. Appeal dismissed. ~ -