JUDGMENT Imtiyaz Murtaza and Amar Saran, JJ.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pritam Yadav for the Respondent No. 4, and the learned Government Advocate Facts
2. An FIR has been lodged at Case Crime No. 524 of 2006 Under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, at P.S. Kerakat, district Jaunpur on 26.4.2006 at 3.30 p.m. on the basis of an application to the S.P dated 25.4.06 by the Respondent No. 4, Smt. Reklia Devi. The allegations in the FIR were that the informant, Smt. Rekha Devi, was married to the petitioner Dileep three years' back. The petitioners, who are the mother-in-law Smt. Sudaraa Devi, father-in-law Banwasi Lal, Jeth Sandeep, Jethani Sanjai, nanad Shoblia Devi and husband Dileep were demanding a Hero Honda motorcycle and Rs. 25,000/-. Her father and brothers sought time to fulfill the dowry demand but again the petitioners caused physical and mental torture to the informant. A son was even born to Smt. Reklia but that did not alter the behaviour of the petitioners. On 4.3.2006 at about 7 p.m. the petitioners badly belaboured the informant, denied her food and drink and locked her in a room. At that time her mother Ramratti Devi arrived there. She was also abused by the petitioners. The jewellery and clothes were snatched from the informant and she was sent with her child to her parental home. On 12.3.2006 the petitioner Banawasi Lal and Smt. Sudama arrived at her parental house and threatened to spoil her life as well as the life of her child. On 13.3.2006 her jeth and husband Dileep arrived at her parental home along with four or five persons and asked them to quietly give Dileep divorce, or else they threatened to abduct the boy Ritik. They left thereafter after threatening to murder and to falsely implicate Rekha Devi and her parents in some cases of theft etc.
3. On a plain reading of the FIR it cannot be said that no cognizable case is disclosed. No ground therefore exists for quashing the FIR. However it has been argued that that the informant is not said to have received any injury, and thus there was no corroboration of the allegations which on their face appeared to be exaggerated. The application to the S.P. was lodged belatedly on 25.4.2006 when the incident in question is said to have taken place on 4.3.2006, 12.3.2006 and 13.3.2006 and earlier to 4.3.06 and there is no explanation whatsoever for this delay. Moreover, the entire family consisting of father-in-law, mother-in-law, jeth, jethani and nanad have been falsely implicated in an omnibus manner and it would be an abuse of the process of law if the entire family were sent to jail on such vague uncorroborated allegations.
4. In Kans Raj v. State of Punjab it has been noted that a tendency has grown to implicate all relations of the husband in dowry matters without even considering the specific and overt allegations against them. In this connection para 5 of the aforesaid law report mentions: "A tendency has, however, developed for roping in all relations of the in-laws of the deceased wives in the matters of dowry deaths which, if not discouraged, is likely to affect the case of the prosecution even against the real culprits. In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused." In view of these contentions and the legal grounds mentioned hereinafter, we are of the opinion that whilst the investigation may proceed, however the petitioners should not be arrested till the submission of the charge sheet, unless this order is vacated or modified earlier.
Legal Basis for directions Section 41 Cr.P.C.
5. Section 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code also provides that "Any police officer may without an order from a Magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person" against whom a cognizable offence is disclosed. The word used is 'may' and not 'shall'. This suggests that it is not imperative that an accused must necessarily be arrested in all cases where a cognizable report has been lodged against him and that there is a distinction between the power to effect an arrest, and the actual exercise of that power.
Joginder Kumar's case
6. The following lines from Apex Court decision in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994 [31] ACC 431 may be read with advantage:
No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the Police Officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The Police Officer must be able 10 justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. Arrest and detention in police lockup of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person's complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest. Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely upon the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the Officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified.
Absence of provision for anticipatory bail in U.P.
7. An important reason for orders staying arrests being passed by this Court in the present case and in a large number of similar cases is the fact that in U.P. there is no power of anticipatory bail.
8. The following lines from paragraph 4 of Mahavir Prashad Gupta and Anr. v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors. also suggest that if the power for anticipatory bails was available in the State of U.P., as it is available in Delhi, much unnecessary interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court could be avoided:
4. On 16.12.1997 the petitioners filed this Criminal Writ Petition No. 905 of 1997 in the High Court of Delhi. In this petition it was prayed that the FIR registered by the police be quashed. It was claimed that the 2nd respondent and the police are acting in abuse and excess of authority conferred by law and are subjecting the petitioners to harassment of criminal proceedings without there being any sufficient ground for taking action against the petitioners. To be remembered that in the Criminal Procedure Code there are sufficient provisions which enable a party to move the High Court if there is abuse of the process of law. The petitioners could have utilized those provisions. Also anticipatory bail had been refused to the petitioners. The order refusing grant of anticipatory bail was accepted by the petitioners as they filed no appeal or revision. There was thus no justification for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition was ultimately dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. However, by this method the petitioners have managed to stall a proper inquiry for the last over 2 1/2 years.
(Emphasis added) Recapitulation of Division Bench decision of Hon'ble M. Katiu and K.N. Sinha JJ in Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.
9. It has been held by the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble M. Katju, J and Hon'ble K.N. Sinha J in Vijai Kumar v. State 2002(45) ACC 534 that absence of provisions for anticipatory bails in U.P. have resulted in orders being passed in thousands of cases slaying arrests, leading to unnecessary burden on the High Court and at least 6 Hon'ble Judges of the High Court who could be more profitably engaged in other more important work have to be engaged in these essentially interim matters. In this connection it would be useful here to quote paragraphs 8 to 18 of Vijay Kumar's case (supra) in extenso:
8. Thousand of writ petitions and Section 482 Cr.P.C. applications are being filed in this Court praying for stay of the petitioner's arrest. This is unnecessarily increasing the work load of this Court and adding to the arrears.
9. In our opinion the problem will be obviated by restoring the provision for anticipatory bail which was contained in Section 438 Cr.P.C. but was deleted in U.P. by Section 9 of U.P. Act 16 of 1976.
10. It is surprising that the provision for anticipatory bail should be deleted in this State although it exists in all other States in India, even in terrorist affected States. We do not understand why this provision should not exist in U.P. also.
11. As pointed out in Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 Supreme Court 366, the provision for anticipatory bail was included in the Cr.P.C. of 1973 in pursuance of the Forty First Report of the Law Commission which observed:
The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on ball, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody and remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.
12. Thus the provision for anticipatory bail was introduced in the Cr.P.C. because it was realized by Parliament in its wisdom that false and frivolous cases are often filed against some persons and such persons have to go to jail because even if the First Information Report is false and frivolous a person has to obtain bail, and for that he has to first surrender before the learned Magistrate, and his bail application is heard only after several days (usually a week or two) after giving notice to the State. During this period the applicant has to go to jail. Hence even if such person subsequently obtains bail his reputation may be irreparably tarnished, as held by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra). The reputation of a person is valuable asset for him, just as in law the good will of a firm is an intangible asset. In the Gita Lord Krishna said to Arjun:
lekforL; pkdhfrZ ej.kknfrfjPprs which means:
For a self respecting man, death is preferable to dishonour.
[Gita, Chapter 2, Sholk 34]
13. No doubt anticipatory bail is not to be granted as of course by the Court but only in accordance with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab . However, we are of the view that there must be a provision for anticipatory bail in U.P. for the reason already mentioned above.
14. Experience has shown that the absence of the provision for anticipatory bail has been causing great injustice and hardship to the citizens of U.P. Often false First Information Reports are filed e.g. under Section 498A, IPC, Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, etc. Often grand-mothers, uncles, aunts, unmarried sisters etc. are implicated in such cases, even though they may have nothing to do with the offence. Some times unmarried girls have to go to jail, and this may affect their chances of marriage. As already observed by us above, this is in violation of the Supreme Court decision in Joginder Kumar's case (supra) and the difficulty can be overcome by restoring the provision for anticipatory bail.
15. Moreover, this Court is already overburdened with heavy arrears and overloaded with work. This load is increasing daily due to the absence of the provision for anticipatory bail. In the absence of such provision whenever an FIR is filed the accused person files a writ petition or application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and this has resulted in an unmanageable burden on this Court. At present in the Allahabad High Court, one Division Bench is doing fresh and recent writ petitions in which the First Information Report is challenged, and another Division Bench is doing similar writ petitions in old cases. Similarly, one Hon'ble Single Judge is dealing with fresh and recent applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and another Hon'ble Single Judge deals with similar old cases. Thus, six Hon'ble Judges of this Court are presently tied up with such work.
16. This Court had in several occasions requested the State Government to issue an Ordinance immediately to restore the provision for anticipatory bail, but all our requests seem to have fallen on deaf ears. It seems that there is an impression in some quarters that if the provision of anticipatory bail is restored crimes will increased. In our opinion this is a specious argument, since it has not made much difference to the crime position in the States where the provision for anticipatory bail exists.
17. We, therefore, make a strong recommendation to the U.P. Government to immediate issue an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976 and empowering the High Court as well as the Sessions Courts to grant anticipatory bail.
18. The Registrar General of this Court shall send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Principal Home Secretary and Principal Law Secretary U.P. forthwith who are requested to urgently take up the matter and do the needful for issuing the ordinance as suggested above.
Presumption of in appropriateness of Sessions Courts for passing anticipatory bail orders not justified
10. There is no warrant for the presumption that powers of anticipatory bails would be arbitrarily or improperly exercised by Sessions Courts if Section 438 Cr.P.C. was restored in the State of U.P., and that undeserving criminals would be let off lightly. Even though U.P. is the only State where this provision has been omitted, but there is no material to suggest that the absence of this provision has had any beneficial effect on the law and order situation in the State. Also Sessions Judges are experienced senior judges, immediately subordinate to High Court judges and there is no reason to presume that they will act in an arbitrary, whimsical or non-judicial manner in disposing of applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Moreover an unjustified order of the Sessions Court granting anticipatory bail can always be corrected by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Parameters for grant of anticipatory bail laid down by Supreme Court
11. The guidelines and parameters for dealing with matters relating to anticipatory bails, the class of cases, and the manner in which anticipatory bails may be granted have been clearly enunciated by the apex Court for the guidance of the High Courts and the Sessions Courts.
12. In Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar , it has been held that the order granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 is for a limited duration and there can be no blanket or unconditional order granting anticipatory bail. This case also mandated that an accused has to surrender and then apply for regular bail before the higher court.
13. The observation in K.L. Verma v. State and Anr. (1996) (7) SCALE 20, that the accused could be given a few days time, and he could apply for regular bail before the High Court even when he was not in custody, was specifically disapproved in Sunita Devi (Supra) and it was held that 'for making an application under Section 439, the fundamental requirement is that the accused should be in custody.'
14. In Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1057, it has been held that power exercisable under Section 438 is an extraordinary power and it is to be utilized only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may have been falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty, if he is granted anticipatory bail. Adri Dharan Das (Supra) case also requires that the accused seeking anticipatory bail must have cogent and tangible reasons to believe that he is about to be arrested and a vague apprehension or suspicion that he may be arrested will not suffice. Also it was observed that whilst the direction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is issued at the pre-arrest stage, but it becomes operative only after arrest and that the proper direction that a Court can issue under Section 438 of the Code was that in the event of arrest of an accused on an accusation of committing a cognizable office, he may be released on bail. There could be no blanket or unconditional order restraining arrest as mat may interfere with the investigation.
15. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibia v. State of Punjab , the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court has held in paragraph 37: "... A blanket order of anticipators bail is hound to came serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charier of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the Court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum.
16. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) it has further been observed in paragraph 31: "In regard to anticipatory bail if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by_ having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed, charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charses, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail.'
17. In Narendra Jeet Singh Sahni v. Union of India , the accused persons, who were a finance company and its directors and were charge sheeted under Sections 420/406/409/120B IPC and Section 139 of Negotiable Instrument Act for accepting deposits in different schemes from thousands of innocent investors from different parts of the country who had fallen prey to their stratagem, were denied the benefit of anticipatory bail on their failure to return the deposits.
18. In State of Assam v. R.K. Krishna Kumar AIR 1998 SC 144, that an order granting anticipatory bail without hearing State authorities is liable to be set aside.
19. In Dukhishyam Benu Pani, Asstt. Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA) v. Arun Kumar Bajoria AIR 1998 SC 696, the pre-arrest grant of anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge where the FERA violation was to a whopping a sum of Rs. 37 Crore, was held to be improper.
20. In Er. K.K. Jerath v. Union Territory of Chandigarh where the investigation by the C.B.I and administrative authorities under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act were underway against the accused and where the High Court had given a finding that the accused may impede the prospects of a fair investigation and by tampering with the prosecution evidence and the accused may also be needed for custodial interrogation, the order refusing to grant anticipatory bail was upheld.
21. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu AIR 1987 SC 35, it was held that grant of anticipatery bail to the accused, who was a printer, in a case of conspiracy to leak the question papers of Public Service Commission, was unwarranted.
22. The Court further observed in paragraph 13 as under:
It is disquieting that implications of arming respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the High Court. If respondents in such case are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised itself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on "the career of millions of students", High Court should not have persuaded itself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order.
23. In State Rept. by the CBI v. Anil Sharma , it was held that the consideration for an application for anticipatory bail need not be the same as the application to release an accused on bail after arrest and that the apprehension by the CBI that the respondent, who was an M.L.A and former Minister, would influence the witnesses, were not found unreasonable and the order granting anticipatory bail passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh was improper.
24. In Director of Enforcement v. P.Y. Prabhakar Rao , it was observed that the order of the High Court granting anticipatory bail in a matter relating to urea scam where the investigation was pending which included an offence involving FERA, the mere fact that some accused arrested in connection with that case, had been released on bail on failure to complete the investigation within the time prescribed, was not a germane ground for granting anticipatory bail to the respondent as there was material pointing a finger towards the respondent.
25. In paragraph 10, the Court noted in the said decision: "The most glaring feature which even the respondent did not repudiate is the magnitude of the criminal conspiracy hatched, the ingenuity with which the cabal was orchestrated and the meticulousness with which it was implemented and the colossal amount of foreign exchange siphoned off from the country. It is not disputed that whomsoever perpetrated this grave economic offence deserves to be dealt with sternly under law.
26. In Salahuddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra , it has been held that anticipatory bail orders should be for a limited duration only and on the expiry of the said duration or on the submission of the charge sheet, the matter should be considered by the regular bail court which was competent to appreciate the material and evidence placed before it.
27. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ram Kishan Balothia , it has been held that the denial of anticipatory bail in view of Section 18 of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for atrocities against members of the schedule castes and schedule tribes cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
28. In Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan , it was held that grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court in matters of dowry death of a woman in her father-in-law's house, at the stage of investigation, was improper.
29. In Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan , it was held that ordinarily the Supreme Court is loath to interfere with an order granting or refusing bail, but it cannot be an insurmountable obstacle for rectifying the order which leads to miscarriage of justice and that in a murder case by fire arm the Court has to be very careful and circumspect in entertaining the application for anticipatory bail and that criteria, such as. status and life, affluence or otherwise are irrelevant considerations for examining the request for anticipatory bail. The Apex Court also interfered with the order as it was passed sub-silentio as to the reasons or the considerations were irrelevant and not germane to the determination.
30. The Court in Pokar Ram (supra) further observed in paragraph 13 that "it must be made distinctly clear that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation was in progress.
Conditions and restrictions mentioned in Section 438 Cr.P.C.
31. Section 438 of the Code also does not confer any absolute licence to grant anticipatory bail to all and sundry, and Section 438(2) itself incorporates some conditions which may be imposed when an order of anticipatory bail is passed. Section 438 is given below:
438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.- (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under Sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in , such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including -
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and whenrequired;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-section (1).
State Amendments
32. Section 438 which was omitted in U.P., has only been retained in an amended form in Maharashtra, Orissa and West Bengal. Some additional considerations before grant of an order of anticipatory bail have been imposed by these State Governments.
Maharashtra: The Maharashtra amendments are the most significant and practical.
33. In Section 438(1) of the Code as amended there, Maharashtra has delineated the factors which ought to be considered for passing an order of anticipatory bail. These are the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusations against the accused, the antecedents of the applicant, whether he was a previous convicted for a cognizable offence, whether the likely object of the accusation was to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant, and the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice if released on anticipatory bail.
34. In Section 438(2) a very significant amendment has been made in Maharashtra to the effect that the Court may either straight away reject the prayer or alternatively grant interim anticipatory foil. In the latter event it shall give at least 7 days notice to the Public Prosecutor and Commissioner (Superintendent) of Police for fixing a date for Finally confirming, modifying or cancelling the interim order after hearing the P.P. on that date. Conditions for appearing before the I.O. for interrogation when required, for desisting from issuing threats or making any direct or indirect inducement to persons acquainted with the accusation for dissuading them from making disclosures before the police or courts, for not leaving India without permission, and other conditions contained in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. of the original Section 438 Cr.P.C are also part of the Maharashtra amendment. Where no interim anticipatory bail order was granted or the prayer was rejected under Section 438(2), the Maharashtra amendment leaves it open to the Police officer or the Court, to arrest the accused without warrant on the basis of the accusation. The presence of the applicant on the date of final hearing is made obligatory if an application is made by the P.P. requiring his presence in the interest of justice.
Orissa: In Orissa the amendment is simply that no order under Section 438(2) shall be passed without giving notice to the State to present its case, if the offence is punishable by at least 7 years, or life imprisonment or death.
West Bengal: In West Bengal an amendment has been made that the mere application for an order of anticipatory bail, shall in the absence of an order not bar the arrest of the applicant in the meanwhile. The Court is to dispose of the application within 30 days. Where the accusation relates to an offence punishable by at least 7 years sentence or more, or life imprisonment or death, no final order shall be passed without giving the State at least 7 days notice to present its case.
The said State amendments are given hereinafter:
Maharashtra - In its application to the State of Maharasahtra, for Section 438(2), substitute the following section, namely, --
"438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.- (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail, and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors:-
(i) the nature and gravity or seriousness of the accusation as apprehended by the applicant;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has, on conviction by a Court, previously undergone imprisonment for a term in respect of any cognizable offence:
(iii) the likely object of the accusation to humiliate or malign the reputation of the applicant by having him so arrested; and
(iv) the possibility of the applicant, if granted anticipatory bail, fleeing from justice either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(2) Where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, considers it expedient to issue an interim order to grant anticipatory bail under Sub-section (1), the Court shall indicate therein the date on which the application for grant of anticipatory bail shall be finally heard for passing an order thereon, as the Court may deem fit: and if the Court passes any order granting anticipatory bail, such order shall include, inter alia, the following conditions, namely:-
(i) that the applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against him so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer:
(iii) that the applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and
(iv) such other conditions as may be imposed under Sub-section (3) of Section 437 as if the bail was granted under that section.
(3) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice, being not less than seven days' notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Commission of Police, or as the case may be, the concerned Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.
(4) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.
(5) On the dale indicated in the interim order under Sub-section (2), the Court shall hear the Public Prosecutor and the applicant and after due consideration of their contentions, it may either confirm, modify or cancel the interim order made under Sub-section (1).
[ORISSA.].- In its application to the State of Orissa, in Section 438(2), Sub-section (1), add the following proviso, namely-
"Provided that where the apprehended accusation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years, no final order shall be made on such application without giving the State notice to present its case."- Orissa Act 11 of 1988, Section 2 (w.e.f. 28.6.1976) [WEST BENGAL]-In its application to the State of West Bengal, in Section 438(2), for Sub-section (1), substitute the following sub-sections, namely:
"(1)(a) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail:
Provided that there mere fact that a person has applied to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section shall not, in the absence of any order by that Court, be a bar to the apprehension of such person, or the detention of such person in custody, by an officer in charge of a police station.
(b) The High Court or the Court of Session, as the case may be, shall dispose of an application for a direction under this subsection within thirty days of the date of such application:
Provided that where the apprehended accusation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years, no final order shall be made on such application without giving the State not less than seven days' notice to present its case.
(c) If the person is arrested and detained in custody by an officer in charge of a police station before the disposal of the application of such person for a direction under this sub-section, the release of such person on bail by a Court having jurisdiction, pending such disposal, shall be subject to the provisions of Section 437.
(1-A) The provisions of Sub-section (1) shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act or in any judgement, decree or order of any Court, tribunal or other authority.-West Bengal Act 25 of 1990, Section 3 (w.e.f. 1.10.1992) Problems with High Court Orders staving arrests under Article 226 In view of counsel's contentions about the urgency of the matter, the imminence of the petitioner's arrest and the risk of the petition becoming infructuous. ex parte orders staving arrests are passed by the High Court at the initial stage without even awaiting instructions.
On the basis of wrong averments, misinformation or incomplete information ex parte stays of arrest are obtained even in grave cases of murder, rape, dacoily or abduction or in cases of major financial and other scams, or even where the accused are absconding, or not co-operating with the investigation, or are unlikely to appear during trial, and where arrests may be necessary because accused have to be put up for custodial interrogation or identification, or where the accused may furnish information for discovering incriminating material under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, or where finger prints, handwriting etc. have to be obtained for the purpose of investigation into an offence. Arrests may be needed to infuse confidence in the public after a grave crime, and sometimes for the protection of the offender himself from public retaliation, or to prevent repetition or continuance of unlawful activities. The High Court is usually handicapped when it passes the ex parte order staying arrest, at the initial stage, as it does not have the version of the I.O. or the other side before it, and it may not be able to take into account the exceptional situations alluded to above.
35. It may be noted that some of these contingencies have been noted in the case of Joginder Kumar' itself. Thus Joinder Kumar's case (page 435 of (1994[31] ACC431) cites with approval the following lines in page 45 of the Royal Commission Report on Criminal Procedure prepared by Sir Cyril Philips:
...We recommend that detention upon arrest for an offence should continue only on one or more of the following criteria;
(a) the person's unwillingness to identify himself so that a summons may he sensed upon him;
(b) the need to prevent the continuation or repetition of that offence;
(c) the need to protect the arrested person himself or other persons or property;
(d) the need to secure or preserve evidence of or relating to that offence or to obtain such evidence from the suspect by questioning him; and
(e) the likelihood of the person failing Jo appear at court to answer any charge made against him.
In page 435 and 436 of (1994 [31] ACC 431) Joginder Kumar"s case also approves of the following lines in page 32 of the Report of the National Police Commission:
...An arrest during the investigation of a cognizable case may be considered justified in one or other of the following circumstances:
(i) The case involves a grave offence like murder, dacoity, robbery, rape etc., and it is necessary to arrest the accused and bring his movements under restraint to infuse confidence among the terror stricken victims.
(ii) The accused is likely to abscond and evade the processes of law.
(iii) The accused is given to violent behaviour and is likely to commit further offences unless his movements are brought under restraint.
(iv) The accused is a habitual offender and unless kept in custody he is likely to commit similar offences again.
36. Because of growing pendency and back log of cases benches of the High Court finally dispose of such matters staving arrests until submission of charge-sheets at the initial stage itself. Such orders may also not be able to take into account and to surmount the difficulties described above.
High Court orders staying arrests under Article 226, a concession In a certain sense the High Court orders described above staying arrests under Article 226 are orders by default as a concession, in view of the absence of any alternative remedy for staying arrests because of the absence of any power in the State of U.P. to grant anticipatory bail. In fact the wider relief of staying arrests under Article 226 has been carved out on an interpretation of Joginder Kumar's case even in some petty cases disclosing a cognizable offence where although it may be possible to effect the arrest, but it may not be necessary to do so, and the requirement of a police officer to be satisfied not only about the complicity of an accused in a cognizable case, but also about the need to effect arrest, as arrest and detention in police lock-up may cause irreparable damage to a person's reputation. The stays of arrests in the writ jurisdiction are also being granted on the analogy of Section 438 Cr.P.C which was enacted with the object of protecting persons from arrests who may have been falsely or frivolously implicated by political rivals for ulterior ends. However on a strict construction of the Full Bench Decision in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. 2000(40) ACC (40) 75, (which has not yet been overruled by any larger Full Bench), the grant of any interim relief at the initial stage, without calling for a reply from the investigating agency and disposal of the writ petition in terms of an interim order is not legally permissible. The Full Bench also restricts interference under Article 226 of the Constitution only to the rarest of rare cases, and holds that an FIR can only be quashed if the allegations in the F.I.R. taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute any cognizable offence. It is obvious that such a situation would arise very rarely in hardly one in a thousand cases. The Full Bench has placed reliance on the Constitutional bench decision of the apex Court in State of Orissa v. Madan Lal Rungta , for the proposition that where the main relief, i.e. the relief of quashing the FIR cannot be granted, the High Court should desist from granting the ancillary relief of slay of the arrest. If the Full bench decision is strictly followed, there will be a virtual embargo on orders granting stays of arrest under Article 226. Unless the powers of anticipatory bail are restored immediately in U.P., there maybe great outcry and disquiet amongst the public, litigants and lawyers, when an embargo is imposed on stays of arrest in all cases, except the rare cases where the FIR itself discloses no cognizable offence.
Advantageous situation of Sessions Courts: The problems mentioned above could largely be avoided if the power of granting anticipatory bails is re-introduced in the Slate of U.P. Sessions Courts when they consider applications for anticipatory bail can easily call for instructions from the locally placed Investigating Officers under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Where a prima facie case for interim relief is disclosed, as the case appears to be a very petty or frivolous matter, where arrest may not appear immediately necessary, or where a person appeals to have been implicated owing to political or other rivalry, the Sessions Court may grant interim anticipatory bail for a week or so, and pass orders final orders on the application under Section 433 after hearing the Public Prosecutor after giving him time to obtain instructions from the I.O. The accused if he is aggrieved with an order of a Sessions Court refusing to grant anticipatory bail has the further remedy of approaching the High Court.
Poor persons also protected by Sessions Courts: The relief of securing an order of protection from arrest because he has been nominated in a petty case where arrests may not be necessary, or because he has been falsely nominated by rivals would also be available to a poor person, if Section 438 Cr.P.C was restored to the Sessions Courts, as approaching the High Court under Article 226 may be beyond the means of an indigent accused. Presently the relief of stays of arrests under Article 226 can only be availed by the solvent and affluent.
Saving for State exchequer: There will also be saving to the State exchequer, and more time will be available, with the I.O. for investigation work if the investigating officers are not repeatedly summoned to the High Court to file counter-affidavits or to instruct Standing Counsel in writ petitions, and if the matters of anticipatory bails are substantively disposed of at the district level itself in petitions under Section 438 of the Code.
Freeing of High Court Judges for disposal of appeals and other important work: It is also important that the large number of judges [at least 6 according to the decision in Vijay Kumar's case (supra)], who are presently engaged in hearing matters under Section 482 Cr.P.C and two judge writ petitions at the stage of investigation be freed for more important work such as regular hearing of criminal appeals. At present there are about 60,000 single and division bench criminal appeals pending which are continually increasing in number as the number of appeals that are being filed are vastly in excess of the appeals that are being disposed of, and it is unlikely that the pending appeals would be decided in the next 50 years, and perhaps they may never be decided and may all become infructuous. This situation of undecided or highly belated disposal of criminal appeals could have disastrous social consequences as it could result in erosion of public Faith in the ability of the Judicial system to deliver justice to the victim, as well as to the accused, and to society at large, and may induce the public to take law in its own hands, or to turn to criminal mafias for dispensation of justice. It cannot be said that this trend has not already commenced.
37. The observations of Judge Learned Hand, In Re Fried 161 F. 2d 435, 465 : 2d Cir 1947 in this context are significant:
The protection of the individual from oppression and abuse by the police and other enforcing officers is indeed a major interest in a free society, but so is me effective prosecution of crimes, an interest which at times seems to be forgotten. Perfection is impossible; like other human institutions criminal proceedings must be a compromise.
Directions: It may be noted that their Lordships Hon'ble M. Katju J and Hon'ble K.N. Sinha J in the case of Vijay Kumar Sinha v. State of U.P. passed orders as far back as 29.7.2002 strongly recommending to the State Government to consider framing an Ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail by repealing Section 9 of the U.P. Act No. 16 of 1976, and empowering the Sessions Courts as well as the High Court to grant anticipatory bail. Almost 4 years have elapsed since those directions were issued in the aforesaid decision.
38. We now call upon the learned Government Advocate to positively file a counter-affidavit within 6 weeks.
39. List this case on 10.7.2006 for further hearing. As the matter is of considerable importance, on that date we would require the presence of the learned Advocate General to assist mis Court on the question of the appropriateness of an Ordinance being issued in the State of U.P. restoring Section 438 as it presently exists in the Code of Criminal Procedure, or in a modified form as in the case of Maharashtra or elsewhere, or after incorporating other reasonable amendments.
40. We also direct that the petitioner may not be arrested in the aforesaid case till the next date of listing or till the submission of charge sheet whichever is earlier. It is of course expected that the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation, as otherwise the relief granted by this order shall become inoperative.