Holding

The Supreme Court held that the FIR could not be quashed, arrest is not mandatory, and interim bail may be granted pending final disposal of a bail application.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution seeking quashing of an FIR (Crimes No.1133/2007) alleging offences under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420, 409 and 218 of the IPC. The High Court refused to quash the FIR but directed that bail would be considered if the petitioner surrendered within ten days. The Supreme Court, noting that a charge‑sheet had been filed and cognizance taken, held that the case was not suitable for quashing the FIR. It affirmed the High Court’s view that arrest is not mandatory for cognizable offences and that, in the absence of an anticipatory bail provision in Uttar Pradesh, courts may grant interim bail pending final disposal of a bail application. The Court directed that the Amaravati decision be followed by all courts in UP and granted the petitioner time to file a bail application before the trial court. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR can be quashed under Article 226/136 of the Constitution after charge‑sheet filing and cognizance.
Whether arrest is mandatory upon the lodging of an FIR of a cognizable offence.
Whether interim bail may be granted in the absence of an anticipatory bail provision in Uttar Pradesh.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 218, s. 409, s. 420, s. 467, s. 468, s. 471

Subjects

quashing FIRinterim bailanticipatory bailarrestcognizable offenceArticle 226Article 136Indian Penal Codecriminal procedure

Judgment

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1027

LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH A
__.\ V.
STATE OF U.P.& ORS.
Criminal Appeal No.538 of 2009

MARCH 23, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND V.S.SIRPURKAR, JJ]

Bail:
.><
.... Interim bail - Seven Judge Bench decision of Allahabad
.,_
l
High Court holding that a court, if it deems fit in the facts and c
circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final
disposal of the bail application, and that arrest is not a must
whenever FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged - HELD: High
Court's view approved - It is directed that the said decision be
followed by all courts in UP. in letter and spirit, particularly D
- ~ since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in the
State - 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 his
reputation -Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable
E
offences, and in deciding whether to arrest a person or not,
the police officer must act according to the principles laid down
by Supreme Court - Since, charge sheet has been filed and
> ~ cognizance has been taken, besides on the facts of the case,
it is not a fit case for quashing the first information report -
Precedent. F

Amaravati Vs. State of UP. 2005 Crl.L.J 755 - approved.
Joginder Kumar Vs. State of Uf.'°' 1994 Cr. L.J .1981 -
relied on.
G
Constitution of India:
- -t
Articles 226 and 136 - Prayer in writ petition for quashing
FIR - Refused by High Court - HELD: On facts, it is not a fit
case for quashing the FIR - Besides, charge-sheet has been
1027 H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 4 S.C.R.

A filed and cognizance taken - However. writ petitioner is granted •
time to appear before trial court and to file an application for I
bail - If such an application is filed, 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 applicant pending final
B disposal of his bail application.

Case Law Reference
2005 Crl.L.J 755 approved para 7 ...
t
1994 Cr.L.J.1981 relied on para 7
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION :Criminal Appeal
No. 538 of 2009
...
From the Judgement and Order dated 03.09.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in CMWP No. 13227 of
D 2007.
~
-
lmtiaz Ahmed (for M/s. Equity Lex Associates), for the
Appellant.
S.R. Singh, Sandeep Singh, Anil Kumar Jha, for the
E Respondents.
The order of the Court was delivered :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. ~ ...
Leave granted.
F
The appeal by Special leave has been filed against the
impugned Judgment dl,d 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court
in Criminal Miscellane us Writ Petition No.1322712007. The
aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the F.l.R. in case
G Crime No.1133/2007 under Sections 467,468,471,420,409 and
+ ~.
218 1.P.C., Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, U.P.
By the impugned Judgment, the High Court refused to
quash the F.l .R. but directed that if the appellant surrenders within
10 days, his bail application will be considered and disposed
H of expeditiously.
LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH V. 1029
STATE OF U.P.& ORS.

Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed. A
'\ By an interim order dated 30.11.2007 this Court directed
that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.

We are today informed by Shri S.R.Singh, learned senior
counsel appearing for the State of U.P. that charge sheet has B
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
>
f.- Article 136 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F. I. R.

Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the
c
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 D
"' +· 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.l.R. of a
cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance
on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of E
U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J.1981.

- l

~
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 spirit, particularly since the
provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate
F
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 G
.I'-
t 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 H
1030 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 4 S.C.R.

A 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
111
before the trial Court on or before 15 April, 2009 and to file an
application for bail. If such an application is filed, the trial Court
B 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
C of the Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to all Hon'ble
Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges
in the State.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

~ -