2015 (3) TMI 1404 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of bail - constitutional validity of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure - Appellant contends that once the writ petition is disposed of by the High Court declining to quash the FIR registered against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 the High Court in exercise of its power Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT - If the Court was of the opinion that there was no other convenient or adequate remedy open to the Petitioners it might have proceeded to investigate the case on its merits and come to a decision as to whether the Petitioners succeeded in establishing that there was an infringement of any of their legal rights which entitled them to a writ of mandamus or any other directions of a like nature; and pending such determination it might have made a suitable interim order for maintaining the status quo ante. As could be seen from the above said paragraph of KARTAR SINGH VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1994 (3) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT this Court has made it very clear that High Court has no power to entertain an application for bail Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has made further clear that the power should be exercised sparingly relating to the cases under the 1987 Act that too only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. Upon the said passage from the judgment of Kartar Singh case learned senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has placed strong reliance in justification of the order passed by the High Court in giving direction to the learned Magistrate regarding the bail application that would be filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to consider the bail application afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order quashing FIR, legality of direction to Magistrate for bail, exercise of power under Article 226 for interim relief.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the High Court order in a Criminal Writ Petition where the Appellant sought to quash the FIR against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Appellant contended that the High Court erred in directing the Magistrate to grant bail to the Respondents upon bail application, citing legal contentions and judgments supporting their position. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 justified the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for interim relief due to the nature of allegations and the status of the Respondents. The Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand also opined against the High Court's direction post disposal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court carefully examined the impugned order, noting that the High Court should not have given the direction to the Magistrate after declining to quash the FIR, citing precedents that Article 226 does not permit such interim actions. The Court referred to the Kartar Singh case, emphasizing that the power to entertain bail applications under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised, only in rare and extreme circumstances. The Court found that the High Court's direction for bail was contrary to established law, as it lacked justification for exercising power sparingly. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the bail application in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint.