Case Background
In a landmark judgment in the case of Deepak Aggarwal vs. Balwan Singh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 5456/2024), The Supreme Court of India set aside an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting ad interim bail in a corruption and forgery case. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, emphasized that the ad interim relief granted by the High Court was, in essence, equivalent to a final order.
The case stemmed from FIR No. 239, dated July 11, 2024, lodged at Sohna Police Station, Gurugram, Haryana. The allegations involved offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These charges implicated public servants and others in alleged criminal misappropriation, cheating, and forgery.
Facts of the Case
The accused had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was denied. Subsequently, the High Court granted ad-interim bail while issuing notices to the state. The informant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the relief granted effectively amounted to final anticipatory bail under the guise of ad interim protection.
Legal Issues
Scope of Ad Interim Relief in Anticipatory Bail Applications
The primary issue was whether the High Court exceeded its discretionary powers by granting ad interim bail, which effectively shielded the accused from arrest prematurely.
Balancing Individual Liberty and Investigation Integrity
The Court also examined whether such protection could jeopardize ongoing investigations, potentially leading to tampering with evidence.
Supreme Court Observations on Anticipatory Bail
The apex court reiterated that while courts have discretionary powers to grant anticipatory bail, these powers must be exercised judiciously. Referring to its earlier decision in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 202), the bench stated:
"The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power… While bail is a rule, anticipatory bail cannot be the rule. Interim protection in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and hamper investigations."
The Court disapproved of the High Court’s approach, noting that directing the accused to join the investigation while simultaneously granting ad interim bail was tantamount to preemptive relief akin to a final judgment.
The Bench observed:
"Ordinarily, when the High Court takes up an anticipatory bail application for hearing, it has three options—reject it, issue notice without granting interim protection, or issue notice with appropriate protection. However, the ad interim relief granted here is practically in the nature of final relief."
The Supreme Court anticipatory bail ruling emphasized that interim protections must not obstruct investigations or hinder justice. It reiterated that such relief should be granted only in exceptional cases, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances, and ensuring it does not lead to tampering with evidence or interference in the investigation process.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court issued the following directives:
Hearing Date for Bail Applications: The High Court was directed to pre-pone the hearing of all bail applications to January 7, 2025.
Presence of Accused Persons: All accused were ordered to remain present before the High Court during the hearing. If they failed to appear, their applications would not be entertained.
Decision on Merit: The High Court was instructed to decide the bail applications on merit, uninfluenced by the prior grant of ad interim protection.
Clarification on Supreme Court’s Stance: It was clarified that the Supreme Court’s intervention was specific to the peculiar nature of the relief granted and did not comment on the merits of the prosecution’s case.
Consequences for Non-Appearance: In the event of non-appearance by the accused seeking anticipatory bail, their applications would not be taken up for hearing, and the Investigating Officer would be free to proceed with their arrest.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, reiterating the importance of judicial caution in anticipatory bail matters. The judgment underscores that ad interim relief must not be granted in a manner that undermines the integrity of ongoing investigations or prejudges the outcome of anticipatory bail applications. The Court’s directives aim to ensure a balance between individual liberty and the effective administration of justice.
Empower Your Legal Practice with AI
Are you a legal professional? Stay ahead with our innovative Lawttorney.ai tool. Streamline your legal processes, enhance productivity, and gain a competitive edge. Experience the future of legal technology—try our free Webinar session today!
Comments