Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Sansar Singh vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 7 July, 2025
Sr. No. 83
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Bail App No. 180/2025
Sansar Singh ..... Petitioner(s)
Through :- Mr. R.K.S Thakur, Advocate
Vs
Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB .....Respondent(s)
and another
Through :- Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD. YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
07.07.2025
01. Mrs. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appears and accepts notice on
behalf of the respondent No. 1. She seeks and is granted time to file her
objections.
02. Issue notice to the respondent No. 2, returnable by the next date of
hearing, subject to taking requisite steps for service within a period of one week
for filing of reply/objections.
03. Through the medium of the instant petition, filed under Section 482 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’ for
short), the petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in his favour in case
No. RC0042025A0008 dated 16.06.2025 registered with CBI under Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 on the grounds inter-alia that he is
innocent and has not committed the alleged offence; that he has been falsely and
frivolously implicated in the case FIR as the sanction and allotment of the work in
question in connection whereof he is alleged to have demanded the bribe from the
complainant was not within his competence; that he alleged work has not been
2 Bail App No.180/2025
sanctioned and allotted to the complainant as such types of works are not allotted
to the contractors but to job card holders; that he is deeply rooted in the society
possessing movable and immovable property and, as such, there is no
apprehension of his misusing the concession of bail; that he is likely to get
humiliated and lowered down in the estimation of the general public in case, the
respondent No. 1 succeeds in effecting his arrest and that he shall abide by any
conditions that may be imposed by this Court.
04. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of his prayer for
grant of interim pre-arrest bail, who inter-alia submitted that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely and frivolously roped in the case FIR.
He further submitted that it is a cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till he/she is
proved to be guilty at the trial.
Learned counsel further contended that in the facts and circumstances
of the cases even if the allegation as leveled against the petitioner is supposed to
be true yet his presence in custody is not at all needed as the evidence referred to
by the respondent No.1/Investigating Agency is within its reach and cannot be
tampered with by the petitioner.
05. Learned Sr. AAG Ms. Monika Kohli in rebuttal, however argued that
petitioner does not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail which is available
only for those who genuinely apprehend their arrest in false and frivolous cases.
She submitted that the petitioner is involved in a heinous and anti-social offence
as he has demanded bribe for doing his official work.
She further submitted that the petitioner demanded bribe of ₹10,000/-
from the complainant/respondent No. 2 in connection with the allotment of some
3 Bail App No.180/2025
work to him which the complainant was forced to pay through the on-line mode
as directed, by crediting the same to the petitioner’s bank account.
06. Learned counsel invited the attention of this Court towards a
judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
Vs State of Maharastra decided on 02/12/2010, AIR 2011 SC 312 and
submitted on the basis of reliance on the said authoritative judgment that the
Hon’ble Apex Court has widened the scope of the personal liberty and has held
that pre-arrest bail cannot only be claimed in extra-ordinary circumstances, but
in all the cases where the Court is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of
the case that there is no need of the accused in custody during investigation.
He submitted that it has also been held in case concerned that pre-arrest bail
need not to be granted for a limited period and the Hon’ble Apex Court held its
earlier judgments on the subject i.e Chain Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
(1976) 4 SCC 572; Salau-ud-din Abdul Samad Sheikh vs State of Maharastra
AIR 1996 SC 1042; K.L, Verma vs state and another 1996 (7) SCALE 20;
Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar and another AIR SC 498; 2005 AIR (Criminal)
112; Adri Dharan Das vs state of West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1057 and Naresh
Kumar Yadoo vs Ravinder Kumar and others 2008 AIR (SC 218) decided on
23rd October 2007, as per incuriam.
07. A case appears to be made out for grant of interim pre-arrest bail.
08. The Hon’ble Apex Court in its Judgments cited as Siddharam
Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra decided on 02/12/2010, AIR
2011 SC 312 and Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and
Another decided on January 29, 2020 by a larger Bench 2020 SC online 98 has
4 Bail App No.180/2025
interpreted law on the subject of anticipatory bail with a very wide outlook and
while interpreting the concept of liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of our country in a flexible and broader sense. The Hon’ble Apex
Court has admittedly, in the Judgment cited as Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
Vs State of Maharashtra, held the earlier law on the subject laid down in Chain
Lal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1976) 4 SCC 572; Salau-uddin Abdul
Samad Heikh vs State of Maharastra AIR 1996 SC 1042; K.L, Verma vs state
and another 1996 (7) SCALE 20; Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar and another
AIR 2005 SC 498; 2005 AIR (Criminal) 112; Adri Dharan Das vs State of
West Bengal AIR 2005 SC 1057 and Naresh Kumar Yadoo vs Ravinder Kumar
and others 2008 AIR (SC 218) decided on 23rd October 2007, as per incuriam.
09. It was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said Judgments that
purpose of anticipatory bail is to uphold cardinal principle of criminal
jurisprudence that an accused person is presumed to be innocent till he/she is
proved to be guilty and that Section 438 of Code (corresponding to Section
482 of BNSS) need not be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases.
Discretion must be exercised on the basis of available material and facts of
particular case. It has also been held in the said case that anticipatory bail
cannot be granted for a limited period. Accused released on anticipatory bail
cannot be compelled to surrender before trial Court and again apply for regular
bail. It is contrary to the spirit of section 438 and also amounts to deprivation
of personal liberty. Ordinarily, benefit of grant of anticipatory bail should
continue till end of trial of that case unless bail is cancelled on fresh
5 Bail App No.180/2025
circumstances. That grant or refusal of bail should necessarily depend on facts
and circumstances of the each case.
10. The following factors and parameters have been laid down for
consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail.
(a) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of
the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is
made;
(b)The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to
whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on
conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(c) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;
(d)The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or
the other offences.
(e) Whether the accusations have been made only with the object
of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(f) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of
large magnitude affecting a very large number of people;
(g)The courts must evaluate the entire available material against
the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly
comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in
which accused is implicated with the help of section 34 and 149 of
the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is
a matter of common knowledge and concern;
6 Bail App No.180/2025
(h)While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice
should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there
should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified
detention of the accused;
(i) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
(j) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is
only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered
in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution in the normal
course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
It is profitable to reproduce a relevant complex extract from the
said judgment as under:-
“….The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every
human being. Respect for life and property is not merely a norm or
a policy of the state but an essential requirement of any civilized
society. Just as the liberty is precious to an individual, so is the
society’s interest in maintenance of peace, law and order.”
“A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the
arrest. In case, the state considers some suggestions laid down by
the Apex Court, it may not be necessary to curtail the personal
liberty of the accused in a routine manner. As reported by and
7 Bail App No.180/2025large nearly 60% of the arrests are either unnecessary or
unjustified. As held, the arrest should be the last option and it
should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case.
Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under section 438
Cr.P.C should be exercised with caution and prudence. It is
imperative to sensitize judicial officers, police officers and
investigating officers so that they can properly comprehend the
importance of personal liberty viz-a-viz social interests. Once the
anticipatory bail is granted then the protection should ordinarily be
available till the end of the trial.”
11. In the another judgment of Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and another decided on 29th, January 2020 a larger bench
of Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to inter-alia lay down the following
guiding principles for consideration of the pre-arrest bail applications by the
Courts:
(i) Nothing in Section 438 Cr.P.C, compels or obliges courts to
impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon
filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the
police, during investigation or inquiry, etc. While
considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail)
the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of
the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of
investigation, or tampering with evidence (including
8 Bail App No.180/2025intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as
leaving the country), etc. The Courts would be justified and
ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437 (3),
Cr.PC [by virtue of Section 438].
(ii) The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have
to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the
materials produced by the State or the investigating agency.
Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed
if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a
routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit
the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are
required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such
limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.
(iii) Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such
as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed
to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering
whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to
grant or note is a matter of discretion; equally whether and if
so, what kind of special conditions are to be imposed (or not
imposed) are dependent on facts of the case, and subject to
the discretion of the court.
(iv) Anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct
and behaviour of the accused, continue after filing of the
charge sheet till end of trial. An order of anticipatory bail
9 Bail App No.180/2025
should not be blanket in the sense that it should not enable
the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of
indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the
offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is
sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in
respect of a future incident that involves commission of an
offence.
(v) An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or
restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating
agency, to investigate into the charges against the person
who seeks and is granted pre-arrest bail.
12. List the matter on 15.07.2025.
13. In the meantime and till next date of hearing before the Bench, the
respondent No.1 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Jammu is directed that he shall in the event of arrest of the
petitioner in connection with FIR No. RC0042025A0008 dated 16.06.2025
registered with his Police Station, release him from the custody, subject to his
furnishing of bail and personal bonds to his satisfaction to the tune of
₹50,000/- each. However this order shall be subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner/accused shall appear before the
Investigating Officer of the case daily between 11:00 A.M. to
3:00 P.M, in connection with the investigation of the case
FIR.
10 Bail App No.180/2025
(ii) That the petitioner/accused shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/s
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him/them from disclosing such facts to the court or to any
police officer.
(iii) That the petitioner/accused shall not leave the territory of
India without prior permission of this Court.
(iv) That the petitioner/accused shall not repeat the commission
of any crime.
(v) That the petitioner/accused shall remain punctual at the trial
in case of the production of the final police report/challan.
(vi) In case of any recovery from or at the instance of the
petitioner, he shall be deemed to be in the custody for the
purpose of Section 23(2) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam,
2023.
(MOHD. YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
JAMMU
07.07.2025
Sapna
SHAMMI KUMAR
2025.07.09 17:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
[ad_1]
Source link