The Supreme Court strongly criticized the Punjab and Haryana High Court for passing a “cryptic and unusual order” in an anticipatory bail matter and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner directly, observing that the High Court should have decided the application on its own merits rather than seeking explanations from the investigating agency. The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the fact that the petitioner was not arrested for four years was itself a good ground for granting anticipatory bail.
The petitioner had prayed for anticipatory bail before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana as he apprehended arrest in connection with FIR No. 05/2021 registered with Economic Offence Branch Police Station, District Ludhiana, Punjab for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1985 and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court passed a very unusual order directing the DGP, Punjab to file an affidavit as to why the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. had not been submitted against the arrested accused and why the petitioner had not been arrested for the last four years.
When the Ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioner was called upon by the Court to explain why anticipatory bail was being sought in 2025 for an FIR of 2021, it was submitted that the petitioner had at one point been given to understand that no case existed against him and that no action was likely to be taken. Initially, the petitioner had been placed under suspension, but the suspension order was subsequently revoked and he was reinstated in service on September 27, 2023. At no point were any efforts made to arrest the petitioner, and it was only upon communication being received from the Deputy Commissioner directing him to appear before the Deputy Superintendent of the Economic Offence Branch that apprehension of arrest was felt by him.
The Supreme Court held that it did not approve the manner in which the High Court had dealt with the plea for anticipatory bail. It was noted that the High Court should have either allowed the application granting anticipatory bail or declined it on its own merits. The Court observed that, surprisingly, the High Court had proceeded to grant anticipatory bail to a co-accused who was alleged to have actually accepted the bribe. It was further highlighted that, while considering the plea for anticipatory bail, the High Court should not have asked the investigating agency why the accused had not been arrested for the preceding four years.
In the overall view of the matter, although the case was pending before the High Court, the Supreme Court decided not to wait for the High Court to pass a final order and exercised its own discretion. The Court ordered that, in the event of the petitioner’s arrest in connection with FIR No. 05/2021 registered with the Economic Offence Branch Police Station, District Ludhiana, Punjab, he was to be released on bail subject to the terms and conditions that the Investigating Officer deemed fit to impose.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.; Mr. Prannv Dhawan, Adv.; Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv.; Mr. Arun Singh, Adv.; For M/s.Mitter & Mitter Co., AORRespondent: Mr. Vivek Jain, A.A.G.; Mr. Siddhant Sharma, AOR
