LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

MUKESH KISHANPURIA versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 702 · Decided: 03-05-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Disposed off

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

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 702 
MUKESH KISHANPURIA 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3224 of 2010) 
MAY 3, 2010 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
C 
s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Rejected by High Court -
HELD: A perusal of order of High Court and also of the 
record, indicates that there is no reason to grant anticipatory 
bail to the petitioner - However, he may apply for regular bail 
and also file an application for interim bail, which a,/Jplication 
0 
shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed. 
Bail - Interim bail - HELD: The power to grant regular 
bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final 
disposal of the application for regular bail -
This power is 
inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly, in view of Article 
E 21 of the Constitution which contemplates that a person 
should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima 
facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Article 21. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) 
F No. 3224 of 2010. 
G 
H 
From the Judgment & Order dated 26.3.2010 of the High 
Court at Calcutta in C.R.M. No. 3810 of 2010. 
Prashant Kumar (for Ap & J Chamb~rs) for the Petitioner. 
U.U. Lalit (NP), Rishi Maheshwari, Sumit Attri, Shally 
Bhasin Maheshwari, Suman Jyoti Khaitan for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
702 
MUKESH KISHANPURIA v. STATE OF WEST 
BENGAL 
ORDER 
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 
703 
A 
2. This petition has been filed against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of 
Calcutta whereby the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for 
B 
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been 
rejected. 
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and 
order and also perused the record. We also see no reason to 
C 
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 
4. However, the petitioner may apply for regular bail before 
the Court concerned and alongwith the said application, he may 
file an application for interim bail pending disposal of the regular 
bail application. We have made it clear on a number of D 
occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the 
power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular 
bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant 
bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of 
Dlndia. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the 
E 
Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if 
he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is 
innocent. 
5. Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail 
before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for 
F 
interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be 
decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final 
disposal of the regular bail application. 
6. We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide 
the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by 
G 
the High Court in the impugned order. 
7. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the 
above terms. 
R.P. 
Special Leave Petition disposed of. 
H