Md. Asfak Alam vs The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

31 July 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023

Result

Allowed

Bench

S. Ravindra Bhat, Aravind Kumar

Citation

[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1184 : 2023 INSC 660

Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438 – Grant of anticipatory bail – Disentitlement to – Husband accused of s. 498A and various other provisions under the Penal Code, and under the Dowry Prohibition Act – Anticipatory bail application pending and no protection afforded to the husband – Grant of an interim order by the High Court directing the police not to arrest the husband during the pendency of his application u/s. 438 – Thereafter, the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken by the Sessions Judge – Subsequently, order by the High Court denying anticipatory bail to the husband as also directed the husband to surrender and later, seek regular bail – Correctness of – Held: High Court erred in mechanically rejecting the anticipatory bail and in adopting such a casual approach – Husband co-operated with the investigation both before and after the grant of protection, till the filing of the chargesheet and the cognizance thereof – Thus, once the chargesheet was filed, there was no impediment on the part of the husband – High Court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail – Thus, the impugned order rejecting bail set aside. Judicial directions: Issuance of – Guidelines on arrest – Offences u/s. 498A IPC and other offences punishable with imprisonment for term of seven years or less – Unnecessary arrest of the accused by the police officers, and Magistrate authorizing detention casually and mechanically – In view thereof, issuance of directions to all the courts ceased of proceedings to strictly follow the law laid down in Arnesh Kumar’s case– High Court to frame the directions in the aforesaid case, in the form of notifications and guidelines to be followed by the lower courts – Director General of Police in all States to ensure that strict instructions in terms of these directions are issued.

Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another [2014] 8 SCR 128 – relied on.

Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of UP & Ors. [2013] 14 SCR 713; Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of

Investigation and Another [2022] 10 SCR 351;

Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (2022)

1 SCC 676; Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2020] 2 SCR 1; Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab [1980] 3 SCR 383 – referred to.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. 1. On the previous date of hearing, i.e., on 26.07.2023, this Court heard the counsel for the parties to the Special Leave Petition. But having regard to the peculiar nature of the impugned order, kept this matter back for orders to be pronounced today. 2. Special leave granted. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of anticipatory bail and a further direction to surrender before the Court and seek regular bail. 3. The necessary facts are that the appellant and the second respondent (hereafter referred to as “husband and wi

View Subscription Plans →