[2009] 9 S.C.R. 821
+
SUKHWANT SINGH & ORS.
A
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
(SLP(Crl.) No. 3529 of 2009)
MAY 18, 2009
8
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - HELD: Order of High Court c
rejecting application for anticipatory needs no interference -
However, in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in
the court concerned to grant bail to a person pending final
disposal of the bail application - Of course, it is in the
discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not
D
..
t
but the power is certainly fhere - In the instant case, if the
petitioners surrender before the court concerned and make
a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of bail
application, the same shall be considered and decided on the
same day - Interim bail.
E
Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009(4)
SCALE 77, relied on.
-t
..
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty - Held:
F
Reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet
of his right under Article 21~ This gains significance while
considering an application for grant of bail - Bail - Interim
bail.
--J
G
•
Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2008(11) SC
609, relied on.
821
H
822
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009) 9 S.C.R.
A
Case Law Reference:
2009(4) SCALE 77
relied on
Para 3
JT 2008(11) SC 609
relied on
Para 3
B
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal)
No. 3529 of 2009.
From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2009 ofJhe High
Gourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No.
M-26413- of 2008.
c
Gautam Godara and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the_
.Petitioner.
The Order of the Court was delivered
D
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
· 2. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment
E and order dated 24.03.2009 of a learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the
Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of
anticipatory bail has been dismissed.
3. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
F judgment and order. However, following the decision of this
Court in the case of Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of
1 U.P.& Ors. 2009 (4) SCA~E, 77, we reiterate that a Court
hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to
grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application.
G In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of
every person. When a person applies for regular bail then the
court concerned ordinarily li~ts that application after a few days
so that it can took into the case diary which has to be obtained
H from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant
+
i
J
·•
I
'
+
-
•
SUKHWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB
823
has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail
A
thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society.
The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet
of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak
Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. JT 2008 (11) SC 609.
B
4. Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant
bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant
t
interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail
application. Of course, it is in the discretion of ,the court
concerne,d to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly
C
there.
~·
5. In the present case, if the petitioners surrender before
the Court concerned and makes a prayer for grant of interim
bail pending final disposal of the bail application, the same
shall be considered and decided on the same day.
D
6. With the abovesaiu observations, the petition stands
disposed of.
R.P.
Appeal disposed of.
Lex