REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.538 OF 2009 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRIMINAL) NO.7021 OF 2007]

LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH                 Appellant(s)

                     VERSUS

STATE OF U.P.& ORS.                        Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Leave granted.  

The  appeal  by  Special  leave  has  been  filed  against  the  impugned

Judgment dated 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous

Writ Petition No.13227/2007. The aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the

F.I.R.  in  case  Crime No.1133/2007  under  Sections  467,468,471,420,409  and  218

I.P.C., Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, U.P.

By the impugned Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F.I.R.

but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days, his bail application will

be considered and disposed of expeditiously.   

Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed.

By  an  interim  order  dated  30.11.2007  this  Court  directed  that  the

petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.

-2-

We  are  today  informed  by  Shri  S.R.Singh,  learned  senior  counsel

appearing for the State of U.P. that charge sheet has been filed and congnizance has

been  taken  and  the  case  is  now  pending  before  the  trial  Court.   In  these

circumstances,  he  submitted  that  we  should  not  exercise  our  discretion  under

Article 136 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be

arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P.  He placed

reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amaravati Vs.

State of U.P. 2005 Crl.L.J 755 in which a Seven Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad

High Court held that the Court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the

case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application.  The Full

Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an F.I.R. of a cognizable

offence is lodged.  The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J.1981.

We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati's case (supra), and

we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U.P. in letter and  

-3-

spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In

appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail

application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a

person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra).  Also,

arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to

arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles

laid down in Joginder Kumar's case (supra).  

Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has been taken, and on

the facts of this case, in our opinion,  this is not a fit case for quashing the first

information report.  The Appeal is dismissed,  However, the appellant is granted

time to appear before the trial Court on or before 15th April, 2009 and to file an

application for  bail.  If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider

the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it  so deems fit,  grant

interim bail to the appellant pending the final disposal of his bail application.

Let  a  copy  of  this  judgment  be  sent  to  the  Registrar General  of  the

Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to  

-4-

all Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges in the

State.  

.........................J. [MARKANDEY KATJU]

NEW DELHI; ..........................J. MARCH 23, 2009. [V.S.SIRPURKAR]