STATE OF GUJARAT versus NARENDRA K. AMIN

Citation: [2007] 8 S.C.R. 1009 · Decided: 13-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Case Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
STA TE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
NARENDRA K. AMIN 
AUGUST 13, 2007 
I 
[TAR UN CHATTERJEE AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 438-Anticipatory bail-Allowed by Sessions Court without 
considering apprehension of prosecution that accused would get opportunity C 
to influence witnesses and that his custodial interrogation was must-
Propriety of-Held: Not proper-Hence, order of anticipatory bail interfered 
with to a limited extent of setting it aside-Sessions Court directed to deal 
with bail application in accordance with law. 
In a murder case, Sessions Court granted anticipatory bail to respondent, 
a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant-State challenged the said 
order before this Court on the ground that the Sessions Court had travelled 
beyond the scope of an enquiry under s.438 Cr.P.C. and had rather dealt with 
D 
a matter that it appeared almost like passing of an order of acquittal. The 
appellant contended that there was no proper application of mind by Sessions E 
Judge to all the facts available and considering the gravity of the offence, the 
. circumstances surrounding the transaction and position occupied by the 
respondent, it was a fit case for refusing anticipatory bail; that this was a 
case where custodial interrogation was a must and the Sessions Judge has 
also completely ignored the apprehension clearly expressed by the prosecution F 
that the respondent, if granted bail, would be in a position to influence and 
coerce the witnesses into retracting statements already made and in not 
disclosing relevant information to the prosecution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. The apprehension that the respondent is in a position to G 
influence, induce or coerce witnesses to desist from furnishing relevant 
information to the investigating agency cannot be considered to be imaginary 
and the court ought to have considered that aspect seriously before granting 
anticipatory bail. The court also should have considered the need put forward 
1009 
H 
r~ 
1010 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007) 8 S.C.R. 
A for custodial interrogation of the respondent for finding out what exactly 
-f, 
happened to the deceased or how she met with her end. In the circumstanceS, 
the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent is interfered but only 
to the limited extent of setting it aside and leaving the bail application of the 
appellant to be dealt with by the trial court in accordance with law and after 
B 
taking note of all the relevant aspects. This course, will sub-serve the interests 
of justice and prejudice neither. The Sessions Court is directed to deal with 
the application for bail made by the respondent under s. 439 Cr.P.c;. in 
accordance with law. (Paras 5 and 6) (1012-B-E) 
'• ' 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1065 of 
-~ 
c 2007. 
From the Interim Order dated 08.06.2007 of the Addi. City Sessions . 
Judge, Court No. 6, Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 2019 of 
2007. 
D 
K.T.S. Tulsi, Ranjit Kumar, Hemantika Wahi, Shivangi, Pinky for the 
Appellant. 
Milon K. Banerji , A.G.I., Mohan Parasaran, ASG, H. Rawal, Asst. S.G., 
~ . 
Gaurav Agrawal, Sushma Suri, Sheela Goel for the Respondent. 
E 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, J. I. Leave granted. 
2. In Writ Petition (Criminal) 6 of 2007 praying for the issue of a writ 
of habeas corpus, while monitoring the investigation into the alleged killing 
F 
of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and the disappearance of his wife, the learned amicus 
curiae brought to our notice an order of the Sessions Court granting anticipatory 
bail to Dr. Amin, a Deputy Superintendent of Police. He submitted that the 
--,. 
said order was unsupportable and had an impact on the investigation itself. 
When the learned amicus curiae pointed out that the State of Gujarat has not 
even appealed against that order, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 
G State of Gujarat sought permission of this Court to challenge the said order 
directly in this Court in view of the fact that this Court was already in seisin 
.I 
of the matter relating to the concerned crime and that in his view also, the 
order required to be challenged. Thereupon, we granted permission to the 
learned Senior Counsel for the State of Gujarat to file a Petition for Special 
~· 
H Leave to Appeal against that order. When such a petition, the present one, 
.. 
.. 
.. 
STA TE OF GUJARAT 1·. NARENDRA K. AMIN [BALASUB
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.