2009 (12) TMI 1063 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Application for anticipatory bail rejected multiple times by High Court, allegations of committing offences under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC, abuse of criminal process, denial of anticipatory bail based on challan presentation, interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

Issue 1: Application for Anticipatory Bail Rejection

The appellant's application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench for the third time. The FIR against the appellant was registered under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC based on a complaint by Karan/Karani Singh regarding the sale of flats. The appellant alleged that the investigation was biased as the investigating officer was a close relative of the complainant, leading to an abuse of the criminal process.

Issue 2: Allegations and Circumstances

During the hearing, it was highlighted that the complainant, a property dealer, and the appellant had commercial transactions and a civil litigation pending between them. The appellant claimed that the criminal complaint was a tactic to pressure him in the civil case. Despite filing complaints and applications, the appellant's requests for anticipatory bail were repeatedly denied by the Sessions Judge and the High Court.

Issue 3: Denial of Anticipatory Bail Based on Challan Presentation

The High Court rejected the appellant's third application for anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the challan had been presented, without considering the merits of the case. The Supreme Court criticized this approach, emphasizing that the High Court should have assessed the case independently and not solely based on the challan presentation.

Issue 4: Interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

The Supreme Court referred to the introduction of anticipatory bail provisions and the principles laid down in the Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia case. It highlighted that anticipatory bail can be granted at any time before arrest and that the court must assess the need for such relief. The Court criticized the High Court for not considering the facts and circumstances of the case and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant, emphasizing the importance of personal liberty and fair procedures.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant in the case pending under Section 420 and 120B IPC. The appellant was directed to cooperate with the investigation when required. The judgment emphasized the need for a fair assessment of anticipatory bail applications based on individual circumstances and the principles of personal liberty.