Lal Kamlendra Pratap
Singh Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.  INSC 588 (23 March 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.538 OF 2009
[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.7021 OF 2007] LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH
Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s) ORDER Heard learned
counsel for the parties.
The appeal by Special
leave has been filed against the impugned Judgment dated 3.9.2007 of the
Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13227/2007. The
aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the F.I.R. in case Crime
No.1133/2007 under Sections 467,468,471,420,409 and 218 I.P.C., Police Station
Mahoba, District Mahoba, U.P.
By the impugned
Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F.I.R.
but directed that if
the appellant surrenders within 10 days, his bail application will be
considered and disposed of expeditiously.
Aggrieved by that
order this appeal has been filed.
By an interim order
dated 30.11.2007 this Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested
in the meanwhile.
-2- We are today
informed by Shri S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of
U.P. that charge sheet has been filed and congnizance has been taken and the
case is now pending before the trial Court. In these circumstances, he
submitted that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India for quashing the F.I.R.
Learned counsel for
the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no
provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed State of U.P.
2005 Crl.L.J 755 in which a Seven Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court
held that the Court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The
Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an F.I.R. of a
cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of
this Court in We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati's case
(supra), and we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U.P.
in letter and -3- spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory
bail does not exist in U.P. 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 a person's reputation, as held by this
Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra). Also, arrest is not a must in all cases
of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police
officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in
Joginder Kumar's case (supra).
Since, charge sheet
has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and on the facts of this case, in
our opinion, this is not a fit case for quashing the first information report.
The Appeal is dismissed, However, the appellant is granted time to appear
before the trial Court on or before 15th April, 2009 and to file an application
for bail. If such an application is filed, the 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 appellant pending the final disposal of his bail
Let a copy of this
judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court who will
circulate it to -4- all Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all
District Judges in the State.