In the Supreme Court of India
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
Vs
State of U.P. & Ors.
Date:23 March, 2009
Bench: Markandey Katju, V.S. Sirpurkar
Followed by all courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in the State - In appropriate cases, interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to his reputation - Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest a person or not, the police officer must act according to the principles laid down by Supreme Court - Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, besides on the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for quashing the first information report - Precedent.
Amaravati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Crl.L.J 755 - approved.
Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J.1981 - relied on.
HELD: On facts, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR - Besides, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken - However, writ petitioner is granted time to appear before trial court and to file an application for bail - If such an application is filed, trial court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the applicant pending final disposal of his bail application.
Case Law Reference
2005 Crl.L.J 755 approved para 7
1994 Cr.L.J.1981 relied on para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in CMWP No. 13227 of 2007.
Imtiaz Ahmed (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), for the Appellant.
S.R. Singh, Sandeep Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, for the Respondents.
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh
Vs
State of U.P. & Ors.
Date:23 March, 2009
Bench: Markandey Katju, V.S. Sirpurkar
Followed by all courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in the State - In appropriate cases, interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to his reputation - Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest a person or not, the police officer must act according to the principles laid down by Supreme Court - Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, besides on the facts of the case, it is not a fit case for quashing the first information report - Precedent.
Amaravati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Crl.L.J 755 - approved.
Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P. 1994 Cr.L.J.1981 - relied on.
HELD: On facts, it is not a fit case for quashing the FIR - Besides, charge-sheet has been filed and cognizance taken - However, writ petitioner is granted time to appear before trial court and to file an application for bail - If such an application is filed, trial court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the applicant pending final disposal of his bail application.
Case Law Reference
2005 Crl.L.J 755 approved para 7
1994 Cr.L.J.1981 relied on para 7
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 538 of 2009
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in CMWP No. 13227 of 2007.
Imtiaz Ahmed (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), for the Appellant.
S.R. Singh, Sandeep Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, for the Respondents.
No comments:
Post a Comment