AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
Leave was granted. These appeals were directed against orders dated 28.5.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013, whereby the benefit of pre-arrest bail was extended to the respondents. Crl.Misc.No.M-7964 of 2013 filed by Ashok Mahendru and others for grant of pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 415, 468, 471, 34 and 120B IPC at Police Station, DLF, Phase 2, Gurgaon was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 19.03.2013 by relegating the petitioners to the remedy of seeking regular bail before the trial court. The petitioners had already been granted regular bail by the trial court in the FIR on December 19, 2012, but Section 467 IPC had not been mentioned in the application or order. The trial Magistrate's order dated December 20, 2012 indicated a direction to apply for bail under Section 467 IPC. The High Court directed the petitioners to appear before the trial court on March 23, 2013 and granted interim bail, making it subject to any final order of the Apex Court and clarifying that appearance and interim bail would not confer a right to pre-arrest bail at final adjudication. SLP(Crl.) No.1979 of 2013, titled Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivangini Mahindru and others, was disposed of by this Court on 19.03.2013 along with similar special leave petitions. While refusing to interfere with orders granting anticipatory bail to private respondents, this Court observed that the orders impugned shall not constitute a precedent for entertaining similar applications already filed or to be filed by other accused, and every such application shall be decided on its own merits in view of the FIR and records. Although those observations could not have been relied upon for granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, the learned Single Judge made those orders the foundation for deciding CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013. The impugned order stated that since the petitioners had appeared before the trial court and were granted interim bail, the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. could be allowed, and observed that the concession of pre-arrest bail granted to co-accused stood affirmed by the Apex Court. This Court found that the learned Single Judge was not justified in relying upon the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by him and in ignoring the unequivocal observation of this Court that the orders impugned in the special leave petitions shall not constitute a precedent and that each application shall be decided on its own merits. The appeals were allowed, the orders dated 28.5.2013 were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Law Points
Whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents by relying upon the order dated 19.03.2013 and the observations made by this Court in SLP(Crl.) No.1979 of 2013, when this Court had expressly stated that the orders impugned in those special leave petitions shall not constitute a precedent and that every similar application shall be decided on its own merits keeping in view the allegations in the first information report and other records made available by the prosecution or complainant. Whether the impugned orders dated 28.5.2013 granting pre-arrest bail were liable to be set aside and the criminal miscellaneous petitions remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal.
Acts & Articles
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 34, 120B, 406, 409, 415, 420, 467, 468 and 471. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438.
Judgments Referred
Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivangini Mahindru and others, SLP(Crl.) No.1979 of 2013, order dated 19.03.2013 — the High Court relied upon this order as the foundation for granting pre-arrest bail, but this Court held that it could not have been relied upon because it expressly stated that the orders impugned in the special leave petitions shall not constitute a precedent and that every similar application shall be decided on its own merits. The learned Single Judge also relied upon his own order dated 19.03.2013 in Crl.Misc.No.M-7964 of 2013; this Court held that such reliance was not justified. Orders dated 27.02.2013 and 05.03.2013 qua Shivangini Mahendru and others are mentioned as sub-judice before the Apex Court.
Obiter Dicta
Not discussed in this judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
An order of this Court refusing to interfere with anticipatory bail, which expressly states that it shall not constitute a precedent and that every similar application must be decided on its own merits, cannot be made the foundation for granting pre-arrest bail to other accused. A pre-arrest bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. must be decided on its own merits on the basis of the first information report and the records made available by the prosecution or complainant.
Final Ruling
Leave was granted and the appeals were allowed. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.5.2013 in CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013 were set aside, and the matters were remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the respondents. Since the learned Single Judge had already expressed an opinion on the merits of the case, the Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to order listing of the cases before some other Bench. Once listed before the Bench designated by the Chief Justice, the parties were free to request early disposal. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, who shall place it before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.
Plain-Language Gist
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order that had granted anticipatory bail to Ashok Mahendru and others because the High Court relied on an earlier order which the Supreme Court had said should not be treated as a precedent. The bail matters will now be heard afresh by a different Bench of the High Court, and each application must be decided on its own merits from the FIR and the records.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against orders dated 28.5.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM-M
Nos.7964-7981 of 2013 whereby the benefit of pre-arrest bail was extended to the respondents.
We have heard Shri R.K. Anand, representative of the appellants and Shri Sibo Sankar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and carefully
perused the record.
Crl.Misc.No.M-7964 of 2013 filed by Ashok Mahendru and others for grant of pre-arrest bail in the case registered under Sections 406, 409, 420, 415,
468, 471, 34, 120B IPC registered at Police Station, DLF, Phase 2, Gurgaon was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of the High Court vide order
dated 19.03.2013 by relegating the petitioners to the remedy of seeking concession of regular bail before the trial Court. The relevant portions of that
order are extracted below:
“I have considered the abovesaid facts and circumstances and I am of the opinion that the petitioners have already been granted the concession of
regular bail by the trial Court in the FIR registered against them on December 19, 2012 but on account of offence under Section 467 IPC having not
been mentioned in the application for pre-arrest bail or in order, the petitioners are apprehending arrest. Their application for prearrest bail appears to
be only in offence under Section 467 IPC which is not mentioned in the order dated December 19, 2012. The order dated December 20, 2012,
annexure P-5, passed by the trial Magistrate indicates that the Court had given a direction to the petitioners to apply for bail under Section 467 IPC.
Prima facie, it appears to be a case where in one set of allegations and circumstances in an FIR, petitioners had been granted the concession of
regular bail except for Section 467 IPC which for certain reasons (intentionally or unintentionally) has not been mentioned in the application. Whether
the petitioners should be permitted to appear before the trial Court and seek concession of regular bail in offence under Section 467 IPC, is to be
determined while adjudicating this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
At this stage, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the order passed qua Shivangini Mahendru and others by this Court dated February
27, 2013 and interim order passed by this Court on March 5, 2013, are sub-judice before the Apex Court.
Since the petitioners are evading appearance before the trial Court, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to direct the petitioners to appear
before the trial Court on the date fixed i.e. March 23, 2013.
Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana, for April 10, 2013.
To be heard alongwith CRM M-7353 of 2013.
Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioners will appear before the trial Court on March 23, 2013 and in case of their doing so, they
will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the said Court in offence under Section 467 IPC as they have already been granted concession of
regular bail in the other offences. It is made clear that the interim order passed by this Court or by the trial Court would be subject to any final order
passed by the Apex Court. Appearance of the petitioners and grant of interim bail to them will not be considered as a circumstance conferring right on
the petitioners 2 to get the pre-arrest bail in the present case at the time of final adjudication.â€
SLP(Crl.) No.1979 of 2013 titled â€" Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. Shivangini Mahindru and others was disposed of by this Court on
19.03.2013 along with a batch of similar special leave petitions. While refusing to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Single Judges of the
High Court for grant of anticipatory bail to the private respondents, this Court made the following observations :
“The orders impugned in these petitions shall not constitute a precedent for the purpose of entertaining similar applications which have already been
filed or which may be filed hereafter by other accused persons and every such application shall be decided on its own merits keeping in view the
allegations contained in the first information report and other records make available by the prosecution or the complainant.â€
Although the observations made in the aforementioned orders could not have been relied upon for granting pre-arrest bail to the respondents, the
learned Single Judge made those orders as the foundation for deciding CRM-M Nos.7964-7981 of 2013. This is evident from the following passage of
the impugned order:
“I have gone through the entire circumstances and I am of the opinion that the petitioners had been granted the concession of regular bail except
for section 467 IPC, which for certain reasons, intentionally or unintentionally had not been mentioned in the bail application. The petitioners were
directed to appear before the trial court and seek the concession of bail in the offence u/s 467 IPC. Since the petitioners have already appeared before
the trial court in the case and granted the concession of interim bail, the present petition u/s 438 Cr.P.C can be allowed. It is not out of place to
observe here that the concession of pre- arrest bail granted to the co-accused of the petitioners, stands affirmed by the Apex Court.â€
In our view, the learned Single Judge was not at all justified in relying upon order dated 19.3.2013 passed by him and ignoring the unequivocal
observation made by this Court that the orders impugned in the special leave petitions shall not constitute a precedent for the purpose of entertaining
similar applications which had already been filed or which were to be filed thereafter by any other accused persons and every such application shall be
decided on its own merits keeping in view the allegations contained in the first information report and other records made available by the prosecution.
The appeals are accordingly allowed, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.5.2013 in CRM-M Nos. 7964-7981 of 2013 are set aside
and the matters are remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the criminal miscellaneous petitions filed by the respondents.
Since the learned Single Judge had already expressed opinion on the merits of the case, we request the Chief Justice of the High Court to order listing
of the cases before some other Bench.
Once the matters are listed before the Bench designated by the Chief Justice, the parties shall be free to make a request before the concerned Bench
for early disposal of the matters. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Registrar General of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, who shall place the same before the Chief Justice for appropriate direction.