Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors

LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.& ORS. Respondent(s)

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.

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

reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amaravati Vs.

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

Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J.1981.

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 application.

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.

.........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. MARCH 23, 2009. [V.S.SIRPURKAR]