Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

Suraj Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4045) - (High Court of Delhi) (17 May 2024)

Power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly

MANU/DE/3489/2024

Criminal

The present application is filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) read with Section 482 of the CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR registered at Police Station for offences under Sections 365/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The considerations governing the grant of pre- arrest bail are materially different than those to be considered while adjudicating the application for grant of regular bail, as in the latter case, the accused is already under arrest and substantial investigation is carried out by the investigating agency. It is trite law that the power to grant a pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the CrPC is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised sparingly. Thus, pre-arrest bail cannot be granted in a routine manner.

It is settled law that the custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the CrPC. In view of the nature of allegations with respect to the offences as alleged, there is a justified concern regarding the applicants’ potential to influence over the witnesses. The investigation conducted thus, so far does not indicate that the applicant is sought to be falsely implicated. The material presented by the prosecution establish a prima facie involvement of the applicant. The investigation is at a nascent stage and the investigating agency needs to be given a fair play in the joints to investigate the matter in the manner they feel appropriate.

It is clear that the victim has been compelled by use of force to sit in the car and forcibly taken to the factory of the applicant. The argument that the complainant was not abducted with intent to be secretly and wrongfully confined and thus, is not punishable, is also meritless. It is apparent that the complainant was compelled by use of force and was pushed into the car and was, therefore, confined in the car wrongfully. The present application is accordingly dismissed.

Tags : FIR   BAIL   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved