RAVINDRA SAXENA versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2009] 16 S.C.R. 433 · Decided: 15-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 433 
RAVINDRA SAXENA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2406 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 15, 2009 
B 
[TARUN CHATIERJEE AND SURINDER SINGH 
NIJJAR, JJ.] 
) 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
c 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Dispute between property 
dealer and buyer regarding sale of flats - Criminal complaint 
against property dealer and his family members for offences 
punishable ulss. 420 and 120-B /PC -
Suit for specific 
performance also filed by complainant - Third application for D 
> 
anticipatory bail rejected by High Court observing that 
"cha/Ian has now been presented" - HELD: It has been clearly 
held by Supreme Court* that anticipatory bail can be granted 
at any time so long as the applicant has not been arrested -
When the application is made to High Court or Court of E 
Session, it must apply its own mind on the question and 
decide when the case is made out for granting such relief -
High Court ought not to have left the matter to Magistrate only 
on the ground that "cha/Ian has now been presented" - There 
,>. 
• 
is also no reason to deny anticipatory bail merely because 
F 
the a/legation in the case pertains to cheating or forgery of a 
valuable security - The merits of the issues shall have to be 
assessed at the time of trial and denial of anticipatory bail only 
on the ground that cha/Ian has been presented would not 
satisfy the requirements of ss.437 and 438 - High Court 
G 
committed a serious error of law in not applying its mind to 
the facts and circumstances of the case - High Court is 
"" 
I 
required to exercise its discretion upon examination of the 
facts and circumstances and to grant anticipatory bail "if it 
433 
H 
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A thinks fit" -
Salutary provision contained in s.438 was 
introduced to enable the court to prevent deprivation of 
personal liberty - It cannot be permitted to be jettisoned on 
technicalities such as "the cha/Ian having been presented, 
anticipatory bail cannot be granted" - High Court erred in not 
B considering the application for anticipatory bail in accordance 
with law - Defence put forward by the appellant cannot be 
obliterated at this stage itself - The plea of the appellant that 
dispute is purely of a civil nature cannot be brushed aside at 
this stage - Therefore, anticipatory bail is granted to the 
c appellant in the case pending on the basis of FIR No. 1071 
2007 - It is directed that in the event of arrest, the appellant 
shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating 
Officer -·Appellant shall join investigation as and when 
required. 
D 
Words and Phrases: 
Expression "if it thinks fit" as occurring in s. 138(1 )CrPC 
• 
- Connotation of. 
E 
*Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab 
(1980) 2 sec 565, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
(1980) 2 sec 565 
relied on 
para 8 
F 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
• 
No. 2406 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.1.2009 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in S.B. 
G Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 794 of 2009. 
Sushil Kumar Jain (for Pratibha Jain) for the Appellant. 
• 
Sonia Mathur, Pankaj Prasad, R. Gopalakrishnan for the 
~ 
Respondent. 
H 
RAVINDRA SAXENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
435 
+ 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
A 
ORDER 
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. The application filed by the appellant seeking 
B 
anticipatory bail has been rejected for the third time by the High 
Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench. On the basis of the complaint 
made by one Karan/Karani Singh an FIR has been registered 
against the appellant i.e. FIR No.107/2007 dated 3.5.2007 c 
Jaipur City, Police Station Vidhyadhar Nagar under Section 
420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC. It is alleged that the complainant 
agreed to purchase the flats being Flat Nos.101 and 101A from 
the appellant and his father the necessary consideration was 
received by the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The same flats were 
D 
subsequently sold to somebody else. It is, therefore, alleged 
"' 
l 
that the appellant has committed offences under Section 420, 
467, 468, 120-B IPC. Amar Nath Saxena (father of the 
Appellant); the Appellant i.e., Ravindra Saxena; Shrimati 
Sharada Devi and Pradeep Maheshwari and accused 
E 
numbers 1 to 4 in the FIR. According to the appellant the 
investigation in the FIR was taken over by Samunder Singh, ASI, 
who happened to be a 

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