The Supreme Court has once again clarified that a High Court cannot grant pre-arrest bail while simultaneously declining to quash the FIR. It further emphasised that the accused must first seek anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court.
“It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible”, observed a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta.
While considering the complainant’s challenge to the orders of the Allahabad High Court, the Bench observed that although the High Court declined to exercise its power to quash the FIR, it nevertheless extended blanket protection from arrest to the accused (respondents) until the filing of the charge sheet. The Supreme Court held that this approach severely prejudiced the investigation and noted that such a direction lacked any logic or rationale.
Adopting this view, the Court relied on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, in which a three-judge Bench headed by former CJI Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud held that, when dismissing or disposing of a petition for quashing under Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot direct that the accused be protected from arrest or that “no coercive steps” be taken during investigation, until completion of investigation, or until the filing of the final report/charge sheet under Section 173 CrPC.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of the quashing petitions on their merits. It further directed that the interim protection already granted to the accused-respondents would remain in force during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. The High Court was also requested to dispose of the matters preferably within four months from January 7.