LexREKHA PATEL versus PANKAJ VERMA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 796 A REKHA PATEL v. PANKAJ VERMA AND ORS. (Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 2008) B MARCH 3, 2008 c D [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 438 - Writ petition s~eking quashing of FIR and stay of arrest - High Court ordering grant of anticipatory bail by appropriate court and if bail was refused direction to release the accused on personal ·bond - On appeal, held: Anticipatory bail cold not be granted as s. 438 has no application to the State concerned (Uttar Pradesh) - Even otherwise the protection of release on personal bond not permissible - However, since the accused was subsequently granted bail by competent court, no interference called for. Respondents filed writ petition before· High Court · seeking quashing of FIR registered against them and for E stay of arrest pending disposal of the writ petition. High Court refused to grant stay of arrest but ordered that if the petitioners-respondents put their appearance or were produced before the courts below and made application for release on bail, the same should be disposed of, and F if their case was not found fit for release on bail, they would be released on personal bond. Hence the present appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court G HEl.D: 1. Presently Section 438 Cr.P.C. has no application to the State of Uttar Pradesh. Even otherwise, after surrender of accused and rejection of his bail r ,. L ,.. "} I ~ .... application, the protection of the nature granted by the ~ • High Court cannot be given. [Para 7] [798-G; 799-A] H 796 REKHA PATEL v. PANKAJ VERMA AND ORS. 797 . ., \ [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] .. Adri Dharan Das vs. State of West Bengal 2005 (4) SCC A 303 ·- relied on. 2. However, in view of the fact that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the respondents had moved for bail and have been granted bail, this court ' declines to interfere in the appeal; but have considered it B " necessary to indicate the correct parameters so that the "· ~ '• mistake committed by the High Court is not repeated. I [Paras 8 and 9] [803-C, D] l " CRIM!NALAPPELLATEJURISDICTION: CriminalAppeal c No. 428 of 2008. From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 13167/ 2006. ~ --r Goodwill lndeevar and Z.K. Faizan for the Appellant. D ' Shakil Ahmed Syed, Manoj K. Dwivedi and Anuvrat Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by the r·":t Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court passed on a peti:-ion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (for snvrt Ft 'The Constitution'). . 3. The appellant was married to respondent No.1 on 12.11.2005. Alleging that she was being harassed for non- fulfilment of the demand of dowry, a complaint was filed at Thana, Jawan Police Station, District Aligarh. On the basis of G appellant's complaint Crime No.277 of 2006 was registered ~· for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian penal Code, 1860 (for short 'The IPC') and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short 'The Dowry Act'). Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed a H 798" SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. . f, A writ petition for quashing the F.l.R. and for stay of arrest pending ... the disposal of the writ petition. The writ petition was filed on 1.11.2006. By the impugned order dated 7 .11.2006 the High Court declined to accept the prayer for stay of arrest of the respondents but nevertheless passed the following order: B "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in the event the petitioners put in their appearance or are produced before the courts below and make application 7 for their release on bail in case crime No. 277 of 2006 under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 l.P.C., Police c Station Jawan, District Aligarh, the same shall be heard and disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law and in case of petitioner Nos.1 to 5, if the learned Magistrate does not find fit case to release them on bail, they shall be released on personal bond of Rs.30,000/- each and they D shall remain on the same personal bonds till the final disposal of their bail application, if any, by the Court of 't ( Sessions and that too within a we
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.