Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.  INSC
1384 (4 August 2009)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF
2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.4992 of 2006) Shree Baidyanath Ayurved
Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ...
Appellant-ShreeBaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. (for short,
`the Company) is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.
appointed M/s. S. Bhatia Enterprises, Ludhiana (for short, `the firm') as its
Carrying and Forwarding Agent under a contract. The company through its General
Manager, Y.P. Sharma, lodged a First Information Report before the 2 PS
Kotwali, Jhansi on or about 2.11.2001. The case was ultimately transferred to
the Court of CJM Chandigarh by this Court by an order dated 24.2.2003.
The respondents herein filed an application for grant of
anticipatory bail. By reason of an order dated 25.2.2005 the High Court, while
granting anticipatory bail for one month asked the respondents to approach the
Court of CJM to seek for regular bail. Respondents filed an application seeking
correction of a typographical error in the order dated 25.2.2005 which was
allowed by reason of an order dated 24.3.2005.
respondents instead of appearing before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, filed an
application for regular bail before the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 19.4.2005 directed them
to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The respondents filed an application for regular bail before the
High Court. They also sought for stay of execution of non-bailable warrants
against them. Both the applications were dismissed by the High Court vide its
order dated 19.8.2005.
Respondents filed an application seeking extension of time for grant of
pre-arrest bail. Notice was issued in the said application.
On or about 6.12.2005, non-bailable arrest warrant was issued
against the respondents on their failure to appear before learned Chief
Respondents filed an application for stay of the non-bailable
warrant of arrest. Notice was issued in the said application. Thereafter, the
respondents filed another application before the High Court, inter alia,
praying for grant of pre-arrest bail and sought for stay of the said order
application was filed by the respondents seeking bail. The High Court vide an
ex parte order dated 27.12.2005 directed that the respondent may be released on
bail on their appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate granted them bail on or about 2.1.2006. The said order has
not been brought on record.
On or about 5.1.2006, the Investigating Officer filed his
objections before the High Court of Chandigarh questioning the validity of the
ex parte order granting bail to the respondents.
Appellant filed an application before the High Court on 9.1.2006
praying for vacation of the ex parte interim order.
On 28.4.2006, counsel for the accused withdrew all the petitions
filed by them stating that since all the accused have furnished regular bail
bonds in the High Court of Chandigarh pursuant to order dated 27.12.2005, the
accused need not press the pending petitions. The High Court by reason of the
impugned judgment dismissed the application for cancellation of interim order
The appellant is, thus, before us.
For the purpose of grant of anticipatory bail, the Court of
Sessions or the High Court must take into consideration the ingredients
therefor as laid down in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Ordinarily, an order granting anticipatory bail should not be for an indefinite
period, particularly when the FIR had been in a police station of another
Court, in our opinion, thus, committed a serious error in passing an ex parte
interim order on 27.12.2005 directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh
to release the respondents on bail. The High Court should not have passed the
said order which for all intent and purport was a 5 final one at that stage.
Respondents evidently took undue advantage of the said ex parte interim order.
When such an order was passed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no other
option but to grant them bail. The High Court, therefore, committed a manifest
error in allowing the respondents not to press their application. The High
Court ought to have considered the effect thereof, namely, the interim order
has thereby been made a final order which is impermissible in law.
An interim order is always passed subject to the final order.
Before a final order granting anticipatory bail is passed, the High Court was
required to apply its mind not only with regard to the stage in which the
investigation was pending but several other factors including the conduct of
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned order cannot
be sustained. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to the High
Court for consideration of the appellant's application for cancellation of
interim bail as also the respondents' application for grant of anticipatory
For the aforementioned purpose, the order dated 28.4.2006
permitting the respondents not to press their applications is also set aside.
The High Court must consider the matter afresh and upon hearing the parties and
upon 6 taking into consideration all other relevant factors dispose of the
matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four
weeks from the date of communication of this order.
.....................................J. [S.B. Sinha]
.....................................J. [Cyriac Joseph]