REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.1923 OF 2010

Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel      ..Appellant  Vs.

State of Gujarat & Ors.                ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR, J.   

1. In connection with an incident which is said to  

have occurred on 11th September, 2008 at about 11.00  

a.m. and continued even thereafter, a complaint was  

made at about 5.30 p.m. to the Police Inspector,  

Anand Police Station, by one Patel Bipin Dahyabhai

2

and three others.  In the said complaint it was  

alleged that on the said date at 11.00 a.m. the  

Respondent No.2 and his associates together with a  

mob of about 20 persons carrying sticks, scythes  

and  arms,  illegally  entered  into  Nidhwad  Survey  

No.66, which the complainant contended belonging to  

h  im  and  his  family  members,  and  threatened  to  

dispossess them by force from the said land and  

even held out threats to kill the complainant and  

his family members if they resisted.   

2. From the contents of the complaint itself it is  

clear that immediately after the said incident the  

petitioner  tried  to  lodge  a  complaint  with  the  

Police Inspector of Anand Police Station, but such  

complaint  was  not  registered  and  within  half  an  

hour thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the  

complainant  and  his  associates  with  sticks  and  

scythes  and  caused  serious  injuries  to  the  

petitioner herein and some of his other associates

3

who had to be taken to the Anand Suvidha Hospital  

for treatment.  In the written complaint it was  

mentioned that besides causing serious injuries to  

the complainant and his group, the Respondent No.2  

and his associates caused damage to the vehicles  

belonging to the petitioner.  Since the complaint  

was  not  registered,  the  petitioner  and  his  

associates were said to have gone to the Office of  

the D.S.P., where they were informed that the said  

Officer  was  not  available  and,  ultimately,  the  

written  complaint  was  made,  in  which  another  

incident  allegedly  involving  the  snatching  and  

theft  of  cash  and  ornaments  from  one  Manishbhai  

Patel and certain other car accessories, was also  

included.

3. After the said written complaint had been made,  

a First Information Report was also recorded at the  

instance of the petitioner herein by the P.S.O.,  

Sanand  District,  Ahmedabad  (Rural),  on  11th

4

September, 2008, at 10.15 p.m. at V.S. Hospital,  

where  the  complainant  had  been  referred  for  

treatment.  In the First Information Report it was  

stated by the petitioner that when the mob of 30 to  

40  persons  rushed  towards  the  informant  and  his  

brother  and  nephew,  the  Respondent  No.2  and  his  

son, Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel, were standing on the  

road beside their car and with the help of signs  

they are alleged to have directed the attackers to  

assault  the  petitioner  and  his  family  members.  

According to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is  

yet another version of the incident contained in a  

letter addressed by the petitioner and others to  

the Director General of Police, Gujarat, wherein it  

was  shown  that  the  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  were  

present  at  Village  Nighrad  at  the  time  of  the  

alleged offence and after having directed as to how  

the entire operation was to be carried out, they  

left  the  place.   The  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  

thereafter applied for anticipatory bail and the

5

same was allowed by the Additional Sessions Judge,  

Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmedabad (Rural), Mirzapur,  

by  his  order  dated  11th November,  2009.   While  

granting the prayer of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3  

for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned trial  

court imposed various conditions to ensure that the  

investigation  was  not  compromised  in  any  way  or  

that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cooperated with the  

investigation.

4. The  said  order  allowing  the  prayer  of  the  

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory  

bail was thereafter challenged by the petitioner  

herein before the High Court.  The High Court, upon  

considering  the  material  available  and  after  

considering  the  various  decisions  of  this  Court  

laying  down  the  parameters  for  grant  of  

anticipatory  bail,  dismissed  the  petitioner’s  

application under sections 439(2) and 482 of the  

Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order

6

dated  11th November,  2009,  passed  by  the  learned  

Additional  Sessions  Judge  and  to  cancel  the  

anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2  

and 3 herein.

5. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by  

the  complainant  being  dissatisfied  with  the  

aforesaid  order  of  the  High  Court  upholding  the  

order of the trial court granting anticipatory bail  

to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection with  

the F.I.R. dated 11th September, 2008.

6. Extensive submissions were made by Mr. Yatin N.  

Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the  

petitioner, in support of his contentions that not  

only  had  the  trial  court  erred  in  granting  

anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3,  

but  that  the  High  Court  had  also  erred  in  

confirming  the  order  of  the  learned  Additional  

Sessions Judge.  Mr. Ojha submitted that in the  

facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case,  the

7

anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2  

and 3, in connection with the complaint filed by  

the petitioner, was liable to be set aside.  Mr.  

Ojha  urged  that  when  such  serious  charges  in  

respect of offences alleged to have been committed  

under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C.  

had been made against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3  

and  their  associates,  the  learned  Additional  

Sessions Judge, having regard to the gravity of the  

offence, ought not to have allowed the prayer of  

the  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  for  grant  of  

anticipatory bail.   

7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr.  

Ojha firstly referred to the decision of this Court  

in Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. [(2001) 6 SCC 338], in  

which the grounds for cancellation of bail under  

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. fell for consideration and  

it  was  held  that  an  order  granting  bail,  by  

ignoring  material  and  evidence  on  record  and

8

without  giving  reasons,  would  be  perverse  and  

contrary to principles of law and such an order  

would  itself  provide  a  ground  for  moving  an  

application  for  cancellation  of  bail.   It  was  

further observed that such ground for cancellation  

of bail would be different from the ground that the  

accused had misconducted himself or that some new  

facts called for cancellation of bail.

8. Mr. Ojha then referred to the decision of this  

Court in Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs.  

Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 SCC 175] in support of  

his submissions that there was no compulsion that  

all facts and details relating to the offence are  

to be included in the F.I.R.  This Court observed  

that  the  information  given  must  disclose  the  

commission of a cognizable offence and must provide  

a  basis  for  the  Police  Officer  to  suspect  the  

commission of such an offence.  Mr. Ojha submitted  

that in the instant case certain information was

9

provided  in  the  F.I.R.  which  was  subsequently  

supplemented  by  addition  of  other  charges  upon  

further investigation into the complaint.

9. Mr.  Ojha  submitted  that  the  said  view  was  

subsequently reiterated by this Court in various  

cases and as recently as in the case of Animireddy  

Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs.  Public Prosecutor, High  

Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC 368], wherein  

it  was  reiterated  that  since  in  the  F.I.R.  the  

accused persons have been named and overt acts on  

their part have also been mentioned, it was not  

necessary  that  each  and  every  detail  of  the  

incident was to be stated.  It was further observed  

that a First Information Report is not meant to be  

encyclopaedic.

10. Mr.  Ojha  submitted  that  the  grant  of  

anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was  

in violation of the principles laid down by this  

Court in State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma

10

[(1997) 7 SCC 187], in which the factors to be  

considered in exercise of the discretionary power  

were considered.  The said case involved a member  

of  the  Legislative  Assembly  of  the  State  of  

Himachal Pradesh, who was also a Minister of the  

Himachal Pradesh State Government for three years  

and was the son of a former Union Minister.  It was  

held that in appropriate cases anticipatory bail  

should  not  be  granted  to  persons  holding  high  

positions  and/or  wielding  considerable  influence  

and that the investigating agencies would be better  

placed  to  elicit  more  useful  information  and  

material  during  custodial  interrogation  and  that  

the  High  Court  had  erred  in  ignoring  the  

apprehension expressed by C.B.I. that considering  

the  high  office  held  by  the  applicant  and  wide  

influence that he could wield, the C.B.I. would be  

subjected to a great handicap in the interrogation  

process  in  case  of  grant  of  pre-arrest  bail.  

Reference was also made to the decision of this

11

Court in Anil Kumar Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. &  

Anr. [(2006) 9 SCC 425], wherein it was indicated  

that among the relevant considerations for grant of  

bail in respect of non-bailable offences, was the  

gravity and the nature of the offence.  Mr. Ojha  

urged  that  the  decision  in  the  said  case  was  

clearly attracted to the facts of the instant case,  

having  regard  to  the  gravity  of  the  offences  

complained of against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

11. Mr. Ojha submitted that whether the Respondent  

Nos.2  and  3  have  abused  the  privilege  of  

anticipatory  bail  or  not  was  not  the  only  

consideration for exercise of power under Section  

439(2) Cr.P.C., what was equally important was the  

correctness of the manner in which the respondents  

had been admitted to bail by the trial court.  Mr.  

Ojha urged that having regard to the gravity of the  

offences  alleged,  both  the  Additional  Sessions  

Judge  as  well  as  the  High  Court  had  erred  in

12

granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2  

and 3 and the said orders were liable to be set  

aside.   

12. Appearing  for  the  State  of  Gujarat,  Ms.  

Hemantika Wahi supported the case of the petitioner  

and contended that notwithstanding the fact that  

the  investigation  had  been  completed,  custodial  

interrogation of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was still  

required  in  order  to  elicit  further  evidence  in  

connection with the case.

13. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it was  

submitted  that  it  is  only  after  considering  the  

various materials available on record in respect of  

the  purported  incident  the  prayer  of  the  said  

respondents  for  grant  of  anticipatory  bail  was  

allowed.   Mr.  Jaideep  Gupta,  learned  Senior  

Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned  

Senior Advocate, who had commenced the submissions  

on  behalf  of  the  said  respondents,  urged  that

13

except  for  the  statement  made  on  behalf  of  the  

State of Gujarat that custodial interrogation of  

the  Respondent  Nos.2  and  3  was  necessary  in  

connection  with  the  investigation  into  the  

complaint made by the petitioner, no other case has  

been made out for cancellation of such bail.   

14. The decisions cited by Mr. Ojha in support of  

his contentions, lay down the principles, which are  

normally  required  to  be  followed  while  granting  

regular  bail  or  anticipatory  bail,  but  the  same  

have  to  be  applied  according  to  the  facts  and  

circumstances of each case.  Except for indicating  

the  broad  outlines  for  grant  of  bail  and/or  

anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be  

prescribed for universal application, as each case  

for grant of bail has to be considered on its own  

merits and in the facts and nuances of each case.  

In fact, the principles laid down by this Court in  

State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC

14

21], broadly covers the matters to be considered in  

an application for grant of bail, but even then the  

same may not fully cover the fact situation of each  

case.   

14. In  the  instant  case,  on  account  of  the  

different versions noticed in the three different  

complaints made in respect of the incident of 11th  

September, 2008, and having regard to the fact that  

allegations with regard to offences under Sections  

395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C. were sought to be  

added at a later stage of investigation, no case  

has  been  made  out  for  allowing  the  petitioner’s  

application under Section 439(2) read with Section  

482 Cr.P.C.   

15. Accordingly, while dismissing the Special Leave  

Petition, filed by Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel,  

we also make it clear that any observation made in  

this order shall be deemed to have been made only

15

for the purposes of disposing of the Special Leave  

Petition and not for any other purpose.    

16. The  Special  Leave  Petition  is  dismissed  

accordingly.

         ________________J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

________________J. (CYRIAC JOSEPH)

New Delhi Dated: 8th July, 2010.      

16