MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

SC: Follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar directions and Section 41(A) Cr.P.C

ITEM NO.25 Court 13 (Video Conferencing) SECTION II-A

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 1758/2022

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-01-2022 in ABA No. 158/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay

JAGDISH SHRIVASTAV Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.27456/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.27458/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.27466/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT )

WITH

SLP(Crl) No. 2090/2022 (II-A)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.32788/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.32790/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.32794/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)

Date : 11-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sunil Fernandes, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioners informed this Court that after rejection of their Anticipatory Bail Application by the High Court by an Order dated 13th January, 2021, they immediately approached this Court for seeking pre-arrest bail.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that no notice under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C was ever served and after this fact came to the notice of the Investigating officer that SLPs have been preferred by the petitioners for seeking pre-arrest bail, he approached them and took the petitioners into custody on 8th March, 2022.

Since the petitioners have now been in custody, it may not be appropriate for this Court to pass further orders but at the same time, we grant them liberty to file regular bail application. If such an application is filed, it is expected from the Trial Court to take note of non-compliance of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C and dispose of the application for post-arrest bail, if any, filed by the petitioners within a reasonable time as expeditiously as possible.

See also  SC: Anticipatory Bail Application not Maintainable by a Person who apprehends arrest after Cancellation of Regular Bail

We deprecate such practice of the Police Officer in overstepping after the matter being instituted in this Court and taking the petitioners into custody without compliance of Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. and keeping in view the judgment of this Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Anr. (2014) 8 SCC 273. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(NISHA KHULBEY) (BEENA JOLLY)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Whether Advocate can claim fees on Percentage On Permanent Alimony Given To His Client?
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation