2020 (10) TMI 1382 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking directions for the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioners to be heard by the Patna High Court which is stated to be still pending - disclosure of false information by the Petitioner in his nomination papers submitted for General Nagar Palika elections, 2007 - HELD THAT - The SEC in exercise of power as enunciated Under Section 18(2) of the Act declared the elections void. Action was directed to be taken against the Petitioners and in pursuance to the same, FIR was lodged against them Under Section 447 of the said Act read with Section 420/34, Indian Penal Code. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the Petitioners are willing to join the investigation and there is no need for custodial interrogation of the Petitioners - the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be agreed upon in view of the conduct of the Petitioners and the greater the office held, the greater the responsibility of the person as in the case of the Petitioners. It cannot be said that the Petitioners held a high office, they are ipso facto entitled to anticipatory bail. The prayer for anticipatory bail rejected - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Anticipatory bail application under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
- Disclosure of false information in nomination papers for General Nagar Palika elections, 2007
- Violation of Section 447 of the Bihar Nagar Palika Act, 2007
- FIR lodged under Section 447 of the Act read with Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code
- Contention regarding custodial interrogation and willingness to join investigation
- Rejection of anticipatory bail and dismissal of the Writ Petition

Analysis:

The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking directions for the anticipatory bail application of the Petitioners to be heard by the Patna High Court, which was stated to be pending. The Supreme Court noted that it was not possible to issue such directions but allowed the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to address the Court on the plea of anticipatory bail. The Court examined the matter on merits, which arose from the disclosure of false information by the Petitioner in his nomination papers for the General Nagar Palika elections in 2007. The State Election Commission found these allegations to be correct, leading to a violation of Section 447 of the Bihar Nagar Palika Act, 2007. Consequently, the SEC declared the elections void and directed action against the Petitioners, resulting in an FIR being lodged against them under Section 447 of the Act along with Section 420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners were willing to join the investigation and argued against the need for custodial interrogation. However, the Court disagreed with this contention, emphasizing the responsibility that comes with holding a high office. The Court highlighted that holding a high office does not automatically entitle one to anticipatory bail. Therefore, the Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail and dismissed the Writ Petition, rendering the Bail Petition before the Patna High Court infructuous. The Court ordered that a copy of the order be sent to the Patna High Court and stated that pending applications shall also stand disposed of.