2021 (7) TMI 1269 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - petitioner contends that the petitioner was not in office when the incident took place but be that as it may a charge sheet has been filed and he joined investigation but was not arrested and then there was no need to arrest him now - HELD THAT - We put to learned senior counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not appear after summons were sent in pursuance to cognizance being taken as logically the petitioner ought to have appeared and applied for regular bail and there should have been no case for anticipatory bail at that stage. Let notice issue returnable on 18.08.2021

Summary

Issues:
- Non-appearance of petitioner after summons were sent
- Anticipatory bail application dismissal
- Requirement for petitioner to be sent to custody on charge sheet filing
- Principles to be laid down

Non-appearance of petitioner after summons were sent:
The petitioner's senior counsel argued that the petitioner was not in office when the incident occurred, and although a charge sheet was filed, the petitioner joined the investigation but was not arrested. However, the petitioner did not appear in court after cognizance was taken on 20.01.2021, leading to the issuance of non-bailable warrants on 17.02.2021. The counsel questioned why the petitioner did not appear and apply for regular bail, suggesting that anticipatory bail should not have been necessary at that stage.

Anticipatory bail application dismissal:
The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed after non-appearance following the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The counsel highlighted the system in Uttar Pradesh, where even if a person is not arrested during investigation, upon filing a charge sheet, especially in CBI cases, the person is sent to custody. The counsel argued that the petitioner's appearance and bail application would have resulted in custody.

Requirement for petitioner to be sent to custody on charge sheet filing:
The court expressed confusion over the necessity of sending the petitioner to custody in such a scenario. Despite the argument presented by the petitioner's counsel regarding the practice in Uttar Pradesh, the court found it difficult to appreciate the requirement for custody. Consequently, the court decided to lay down principles in this regard.

Principles to be laid down:
In light of the confusion surrounding the need for the petitioner to be sent to custody upon filing of the charge sheet, the court deemed it appropriate to establish principles on this matter. The court issued a notice returnable on 18.08.2021 and directed the petitioner not to be arrested in the meantime, with the execution of non-bailable warrants being stayed. However, the petitioner was instructed to appear before the court on the next date, and a copy of the order was to accompany the notice.