MD. ASFAK ALAM versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 1184 · Decided: 31-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAVINDRA BHAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
1184
MD. ASFAK ALAM
v.
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 2207 of 2023)
JULY 31, 2023
[S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.]
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.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 1184 : 2023 INSC 660
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1185
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.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 14 SCR 713
referred to
Para 3
[2022] 10 SCR 351
referred to
Para 7
(2022) 1 SCC 676
referred to
Para 7
[2020] 2 SCR 1
referred to
Para 10
[1980] 3 SCR 383
referred to
Para 10
[2014] 8 SCR 128
relied on
Para 12, 13
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
2207 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2023 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in ABA No. 5771 of 2022.
Smarhar Singh, Ms. Shweta Kumari, Chinmay Kumar, Mohd.
Asim, Manoj Kumar, Rishi Raj, Advs. for the Appellant.
Vishnu Sharma, Ms. Madhusmita Bora, Pawan Kishore Singh,
Dipankar Singh, Mrs. Anupama Sharma, Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advs.
for the Respondents.
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.
MD. ASFAK ALAM v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
3. The necessary facts are that the appellant and the second
respondent (hereafter referred to as “husband and wife”, respectively)
were married on 5.11.2020. The appellant alleges that the respondent-
wife was not happy and her father used to interfere and pressurize him
and his family. This led to complaints lodged against the wife’s family
for threatening the appellant’s family. It is alleged that on 02.04.2022,
without complying with the directions of Five Judge Bench in Lalita
Kumari vs. Govt. of UP &Ors.,1 the concerned Police Station2, registered
the First Informatio

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