M.C. ABRAHAM AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 20-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M.C. ABRAHAM AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 20, 2002 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950; Article 226: 
Writ Jurisdiction of High Court-Matter under investigation-Directions 
issued by the High Court to the State/investigating Officer to arrest the accused C 
and show no laxity in the investigation-Held, such directions amounted to 
-unjustified interference in the investigation of the case-Penal Code, I 860; 
Sections 406 and 409134. 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-&ction 41: 
Anticipatory bail-Rejection-Direction by High Court to arrest 
accused-Correctness of-Held, Investigating officer may or may not arrest 
accused person depending on the facts and circumstances of the case-It is 
wrong to assume that on rejection of anticipatory bail application State must 
arrest accused person. 
Maharashtra Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Employees Association 
& Others filed a Writ Petition seeking direction against the State to 
expedite investigation lodged by the Provident Fund Commissioner against 
several Directors of the Company. High Court directed the State to arrest 
D 
E 
and prosecute the accused and held that Investigating Officer was not 
justified in not proceeding against the accused on the ground that no funds F 
have been misappropriated by accused. In the meanwhile, on appeal filed 
by the aggrieved appellants, this Court stayed High Court's order of arrest 
of accused. High Court further directed the State not to show any laxity 
in the investigation. Hence the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellants that High Court could not direct G 
the investigating Agency or the State to arrest accused and submit 
investigation report while matter was under investigation. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Arrest of an accused is a part of the investigation and is H 
677 
678 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A within the discretion of the investigating officer. Section 41 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure gives discretion to the police officer who may, 
without an order from a Magistrate and even without a warrant, arrest 
any person in the situations enumerated in that section. It is open to him 
in the course of investigation, to arrest any person who has been concerned 
B with any cognizable offence or against whom reasonable complaint has 
been made or credible information has been received, or a reasonable 
suspicion exists of his having been so concerned. He is not expected to act 
in a mechanical manner and in all cases to arrest the accused as soon as 
the report is lodged. In appropriate cases, after some investigation, the 
investigating officer may make up his mind as to the necessity to arrest 
C the accused person. At that stage the Court has no role to play. 
1685-B, c, DI 
State of Bihar and Anr. v. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors., [1980) I SCC 554, 
relied on. 
D 
S.M Sharma v. Bipen Kumar Tiwari, 119701 3 SCR 946, referred to. 
1.2. In the instant case, the appellants had not been arrested. The 
result of the investigation showed that no amount had been defalcated. 
The investigating officer did not consider it necessary, having regard to 
all the facts and circumstances of the case, to arrest the accused. In such 
E a case there was no justification for the High Court to direct the State to 
arrest the appellants against whom the first information report was lodged, 
as it amounted to unjustified interference in the investigation of the case. 
The mere fact that the anticipatory bail applications of some of the 
appellants had been rejected is no ground for directing their immediate 
arrest. 1685-F; G) 
F 
1.3. The High Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that since 
petitions for anticipatory bail had been rejected, there was no option open 
for the State but to arrest those persons. A person whose petition for grant 
of anticipatory bail has been rejected may or may not be arrested by the 
investigating officer depending upon the facts and circumstances of the 
G case, nature of the offence, the background of the accused, the facts 
disclosed in the course of investigation and other relevant considerations. 
1686-B-CI 
1.4. It is not necessary to comment on the tentative view of the 
H investigating agency. It is the statutory duty of the investigating agency 
M.C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
679 
to fully investigate the matter and then submit a report to the concerned A 
Magistrate. The Magistrate w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.