Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights  ||  Delhi HC: Homemaker’s Services Cannot Be Ignored in Compensation Due to Age  ||  Kerala High Court Directs Photos and Videos of Illegal Vehicle Modifications in Accident Reports  ||  Madras HC: Property Acquired by Catholic Priests Belongs to the Religious Society  ||  Delhi HC: Pre-Marital Disability Cannot Be Used to Avoid Maintenance to Wife and Child  ||  Allahabad HC: Religious Freedom Does Not Confer a Right to a Specific Plot for Cemetery  ||  Allahabad HC: Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone Cannot Prove Wilful Neglect under SC/ST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Teachers Cannot Face Criminal Action for Trivial Classroom Discipline Measures  ||  Supreme Court: Past Ad Hoc Service Counts for Pension, Not Seniority Against Direct Recruits    

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