SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 04-08-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

,
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 326 
A 
SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1412 of 2009) 
B 
AUGUST 4, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Interim order: Bail application - Ex parte interim order 
passed by High Court directing Chief Judicial Magistrate 
... .. 
c (CJM) to release the respondents on bail - Held: High Court 
should not have passed the said order which for all intent and 
purport was a final one at that stage - After such an order, CJM 
had no other option but to grant bail - Interim order was 
thereby made final order which is impermissible in law - An 
D interim order is always passed subject to the final order- Code 
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.438, 439. 
~· 
An FIR was lodged against respondent. He filed an 
.,. 
application for bail. High Court by an ex parte order dated 
E 27 .12.2005 directed that the respondent may be released 
.. 
on bail on their appearance before the CJM. Appellant 
filed an application before the High Court praying for 
vacation of an ex parte interim order dated 27.12.2005, 
which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. 
.... 
~ 
F 
Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD: High Court committed a serious error in 
passing an ex parte interim order on 27.12.2005 directing 
G the Chief Judicial Magistrate to release the respondents 
on bail. The High Court should not have passed the said 
-A~ 
order which for all intent and purport was a final one at 
that stage. Respondents evidently took undue advantage 
... 
of the said ex parte interim order. When such an order 
H 
326 
SHREE BAIDYANATH AYURVED BHAWAN PVT. LTD. 327 
v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
was passed, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had no other A 
option but to grant them bail. The interim order has 
thereby been made a final order which is impermissible 
in law. An interim order is always passed subject to the 
final order. Before a final order granting anticipatory bail 
is passed, the High Court was required to apply its mind B 
not only with regard to the stage in which the investigation 
was pending but several other factors including the 
}' 
~ 
conduct of the accused. [Paras 11 and 121 [329-G-H; 330-
8-C] 
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal c 
No. 1412 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.12.2005 of the High 
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Misc. No. 
• 
71691-M of 2005 and Order dated 28.4.2006 in Crl. Misc. No . D 
-f 
,., 
2717-19 of 2006 in Crl. Misc. Mo. 71691-M of 2005. 
Sunil Gupta, T.S. Doabia, Rishi Maheshwari, Shally Bhasin 
Maheshwar.i, Vikramjeet Banerjee, Anne Mathew, B. 
Ranganathan, Atul Shankar Mathur, Shruti Verma (for Khaitan 
E 
& Co.), Anil Grover, Manish Kumar, Pramod Swarup, V.P. 
Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, Sunita Sharma, Subhash Kaushik, Anil 
~ ~ 
Katiyar (for D.S. Mahra), J.S. Bhatti, Shree Pal Singh, Ajay Pal, 
Kuldip Singh, Javed Mahmud Rao for the appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Appellant~ShreeBaidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Pvt. Ltd. 
.... ~ 
(for short, 'the Company) is a company registered under the 
G 
Indian Companies Act, 1956. It appointed M/s. S. Bhatia 
~ 
Enterprises, Ludhiana (for short, 'the firm') as its Carrying and 
Forwarding Agent under a contract. The company through its 
General Manager, Y.P. Sharma, lodged a First Information 
Report before the PS Kqtwali, Jhansi on or about 2.11.2001. 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A The case was ultimately transferred to the Court of CJM 
l 
Chandigarh by this Court by an order dated 24.2.2003. 
3. The respondents herein filed an application for grant of 
anticipatory bail. By reason of an order dated 25.2.2005 the 
B High Court, while granting anticipatory bail for one month asked 
the respondents to approach the Court of CJM to seek for 
regular bail. Respondents filed an application seeking 
correction of a typographical error in the order dated 25.2.2005 
which was allowed by reason of an order dated 24.3.2005. 
... 
~ 
c 
The respondents instead of appearing before the Chief 
Judicial Magistrate, filed an application for regular bail before 
the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The learned 
Additional Sessions Judge, by order dated 19.4.2005 directed 
them to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 
D 
4. The respondents filed an application for regular bail 
~· 
before the High Court. They also sought for stay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.