1997 (11) TMI 542 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
2. Validity of the bail rejection by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
3. Application for impleadment of Mukhtar Ansari as petitioner.
4. Request to treat Mukhtar Ansari as being in custody.
5. Modification of the order to stay Mukhtar Ansari's arrest.
6. Preliminary objections by C.B.I.
7. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.
8. Compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.:
The petition was filed under Section 482 Cr. P.C. by four individuals challenging the bail rejection. The court noted that the inherent power of the High Court to secure the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court is always present, but should be exercised sparingly and cautiously in rarest of rare cases. The court referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including *State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal* and *State of H.P. v. Pirthi Chand*, emphasizing that interference at the stage of investigation should be exceptional.

2. Validity of the bail rejection by the Chief Judicial Magistrate:
The bail application was rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on the grounds that the applicants were not in custody of that court. The court noted that the applicants were detained in Ghazipur Jail for another offense, and a 'B' warrant was issued by C.J.M. Varanasi for taking their custody. The court found that the matter required investigation by the C.B.I., as directed by the Division Bench.

3. Application for impleadment of Mukhtar Ansari as petitioner:
Mukhtar Ansari was allowed to be impleaded as petitioner No. 5 upon an application moved on 8-9-97. The court allowed this development, noting that there was no objection from the original applicants.

4. Request to treat Mukhtar Ansari as being in custody:
An application was filed by Mukhtar Ansari to be treated as in custody in the case crime No. 19 of 1997. The court heard the matter and passed a detailed order on 9-9-1997, ensuring adequate security for his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. It was left open for the concerned parties to apprise the Chief Judicial Magistrate about the order.

5. Modification of the order to stay Mukhtar Ansari's arrest:
Mukhtar Ansari sought modification of the 9-9-1997 order to stay his arrest during the C.B.I. investigation. The court examined the Division Bench's order and concluded that the C.B.I. was conducting an investigation, not merely an enquiry. The court decided to address the whole case rather than the application separately, noting that the applicant's prayer for staying his arrest was premature.

6. Preliminary objections by C.B.I.:
The C.B.I. raised a preliminary objection that the petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. was not maintainable, arguing that the investigation was at an initial stage and interference would hamper it. The court referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including *Joginder Kumar v. State* and *State represented by the C.B.I. v. Anil Sharma*, to emphasize that arrest is part of the investigation and should not be interfered with lightly.

7. Jurisdiction and powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C.:
The court discussed the jurisdiction and powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., referencing the Full Bench decision in *Ramlal Yadav v. State of U.P.* and other Supreme Court rulings. The court emphasized that the power should be used sparingly and only in rare cases to prevent miscarriage of justice.

8. Compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal:
The court directed that the guidelines issued in *D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal* be followed by the C.B.I., especially those related to the arrest and handling of the arrestee, such as identification of police personnel, preparation of a memo of arrest, informing a friend or relative, and medical examination of the arrestee.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed as it was deemed premature and not fitting the criteria for rarest of rare cases. The court emphasized the need for compliance with the Supreme Court guidelines in *D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal* during the arrest and interrogation process.