SUKHWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB

vidhipandit.com/case/sc-2009-9-821-823

Supreme Court of India (SC) · decided (year only) · MARKANDEY KATJU and DEEPAK VERMA · judgment

Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 821

Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)

Held

s. 438 - Anticipatory bail -

Order of High Court c rejecting application for anticipatory needs no interference - However, in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application - Of course, it is in the

a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of bail application, the same shall be considered and decided on the same day - Interim bail. E Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2009(4) SCALE 77, relied on. -t .. Constitution of India, 1950: F Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty -

Reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21~ This gains significance while considering an application for grant of bail - Bail - Interim bail. --J G • Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2008(11) SC 609, relied on.

Judgment

p. 821

+ SUKHWANT SINGH & ORS. A v. STATE OF PUNJAB (SLP(Crl.) No. 3529 of 2009)

MAY 18, 2009 8

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

.. t discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly fhere - In the instant case, if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and make D

821 H

p. 822

+ A Case Law Reference: 2009(4) SCALE 77 relied on Para 3 JT 2008(11) SC 609 relied on Para 3

B CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) No. 3529 of 2009.

From the Judgment & Order dated 24.03.2009 ofJhe High i Gourt of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. M-26413- of 2008. c Gautam Godara and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the_ .Petitioner. J

The Order of the Court was delivered D ORDER I

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. ·• '

· 2. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24.03.2009 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the Application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed. +

33. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. However, following the decision of this Court in the case of Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of 1 U.P.& Ors. 2009 (4) SCA~E, 77, we reiterate that a Court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. G In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned ordinarily li~ts that application after a few days so that it can took into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant

SUKHWANT SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF PUNJAB 823

has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. JT 2008 (11) SC 609. B

44. Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant t interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the discretion of ,the court concerne,d to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly C there.

55. In the present case, if the petitioners surrender before the Court concerned and makes a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application, the same shall be considered and decided on the same day. D

66. With the abovesaiu observations, the petition stands disposed of.

- R.P. Appeal disposed of.

• ~·

Report an error in this judgment →

Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0