PANKAJ JAIN versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 248 · Decided: 23-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
PANKAJ JAIN
v.
UNION OF INDIA &  ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 321 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.88 – Interpretation of
–  Power to take bond for appearance – Whether it was obligatory
for the trial Court to release the appellant by accepting the bond
u/s.88 on the ground that he was not arrested during the investigation
or has the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 in
rejecting the application for release by accepting the bond u/s.88 –
Held: Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 – s.88
does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court
– Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose and
object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or to
any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial –
Discretion given u/s.88 to the Court does not confer any right on a
person, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given to
the Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates that
use of word ‘may’ (in s.88) is discretionary and it is for the Court to
exercise its discretion when situation so demands – Further, the word
used u/s.88 “any person” has to be given wide meaning, which
may include persons, who are not even accused in a case and
appeared as witnesses – Interpretation of Statutes.
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.88 – Release on
acceptance of bond u/s.88 – Entitlement for – Held: s.88 of the
Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present in
a Court – Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose
and object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or
to any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial
– The present is not a case where accused was a free agent whether
to appear or not – He was already issued non-bailable warrant of
arrest as well as proceeding of  ss.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had been
initiated – In this view of the matter he was not entitled to the benefit
of  s.88.
[2018]  9  S.C.R. 248
                                                  248
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
249
Bail – Request by appellant to release him on bail – Held:
Request cannot be accepted – In instant case, the Supreme Court
on two earlier occasions had granted liberty to the appellant to
make an application for bail before the trial court, however, the
appellant had not filed any application and had only insisted for
releasing him on acceptance of bond u/s.88 Cr.P.C. – Also, in facts
of this case, trial Court is to first consider the prayer of grant of
bail of the appellant – Thus, when the appellant files a bail
application, the same shall be considered forthwith by trial court
taking into consideration his claim of disability and other relevant
grounds which are urged or may be urged by the appellant before
it.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any
right on any person, who is present in a Court.  Discretion given
under Section 88 to the Court does not confer any right on a
person, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given
to the Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates
that use of word ‘may’ is discretionary and it is for the Court to
exercise its discretion when situation so demands.  It is further
relevant to note that the word used in Section 88 “any person”
has to be given wide meaning, which may include persons, who
are not even accused in a case and appeared as witnesses. [Para
23] [260-E-F]
2. The word ‘may’ used in Section 88 confers a discretion
on the Court whether to accept a bond from an accused from a
person appearing in the Court or not. There is no infirmity in the
view taken by the Special Judge, C.B.I. as well as the High Court
in coming to the conclusion that accused was not entitled to be
released on acceptance of bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. [Para
31] [265-A-B]
3. Appellant submitted that since the appellant has made a
request to set him on liberty by accepting the bond before the
Special Judge, C.B.I. as well may release the appellant on bail.
He further submitted that appellant is a person with 60%
disability, and that the loss which was alleged in the First
PANKAJ JAIN v. UNION OF INDIA &  ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 9 S.C.R.
Information Report is secured and this Court may exercise its
jurisdiction in granting the bail to t

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