Supreme Court: As against Rajasthan High Court’s dismissal of anticipatory bail application for a matter involving offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), the Division Bench of A.S. Bopanna and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. continued the interim protection already granted vide order dated 19-05-2023.
The Rajasthan High Court had denied anticipatory bail to the appellant vide order dated 3-03-2023 on the ground that instead of surrendering before the Court, a second bail application was filed. The said dismissal was challenged in the instant appeal. This Court had previously granted interim protection to the appellant vide order dated 19-05-2023 requiring the appellant to diligently participate in the investigation and complying with the conditions under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Factual Background
The instant matter pertains to a complaint that the appellant fraudulently got mutation done in his favour based on General Power of Attorney dated 4-10-2001 executed for 3 years, for the land belonging to the complainant and others, and sold the said land by way of cheating and mala fide intention. A First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).
Pending investigation and apprehending arrest, the appellant preferred anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court which was eventually dismissed on police finding prima facie case under Section 420 of IPC. The second anticipatory bail application was also dismissed by the High Court as stated above.
It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that both the Courts dismissed anticipatory bail applications without giving any finding on merits. On the other hand, the State opposed the interim protection stating that the charge alleged against the appellant was serious and may require custodial interrogation.
Decision
The Court perused the objection statement and considered the fact that there was no specific complaint of non-cooperation in the investigation. Therefore, the Court refused to modify or alter the order dated 19-05-2023 extending interim protection to the appellant. The Court reiterated the requirements for the appellant to diligently participate in the investigation and the further process and ordered continuation of the interim protection till the completion of the process.
[Surgyan v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1325, Order dated 11-10-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate Harsh Tikoo, Advocate Manish Kr. Kasyap, Advocate on Record Mohan Lal Sharma
For Respondent: Advocate Vikas Chaudhry, Advocate Malini Jain, Advocate Neha Kapoor, Advocate on Record Milind Kumar
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
