Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005313-005313 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 23638/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on bail jurisdiction; sets aside High Court order |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNS) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that an appeal against the grant of anticipatory bail requires demonstration of perverse exercise or illegality, including non-application of mind and omission of relevant factors like custodial interrogation needs. Failure to consider an investigative status report vitiates the order. Bail orders must reflect assessment of gravity, societal impact, and possibility of influencing witnesses, as elucidated in Ashok Dhankad and Vipan Kumar Dhir. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | FIR alleged embezzlement of over Rs 3 crore by a senior accountant of Amandeep Healthcare; Sessions Court refused anticipatory bail; High Court granted bail under Section 482 BNS despite a status report requesting custodial interrogation to recover funds and identify co-accused. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts |
| Follows | Ashok Dhankad v. State (NCT of Delhi); Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Supreme Court reiterates that bail orders under Section 482 BNS must reflect application of mind and address all relevant factors.
- Investigative status reports indicating need for custodial interrogation cannot be ignored; failure to do so renders the order perverse.
- Appeal against anticipatory bail is confined to grounds of perversity, illegality or non-consideration of relevant factors, not a re-trial of evidence.
- Counsel may invoke this ruling to challenge bail grants where courts bypass essential investigative requirements.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Reviewed principles from Ashok Dhankad distinguishing appeals against bail from cancellation petitions.
- Emphasized grounds for interference: perversity, illegality, non-application of mind, ignoring relevant factors (gravity, societal impact, custodial interrogation).
- Cited Vipan Kumar Dhir on revoking bail when courts overlook material available on record.
- Applied to the High Court’s order: although it recorded the status report, it did not engage with its contents or explain ignoring the accused’s conduct.
- Concluded that the order was vitiated by failure to consider essential facts and set aside the grant of anticipatory bail.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
High Court failed to apply its mind and ignored need for custodial interrogation.
State
Supports complainant’s view; custodial interrogation necessary to recover funds and complete investigation.
Accused
Investigation complete and charge-sheet filed; custodial interrogation no longer required.
Factual Background
A chartered accountant lodged an FIR alleging that a senior accountant of Amandeep Healthcare misappropriated over Rs 3 crore. The accused’s anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court but later granted by the High Court under inherent powers of Section 482 BNS. A status report requested custodial interrogation to recover funds and identify co-accused, which the High Court did not address. The Supreme Court heard the appeal against the bail grant.
Statutory Analysis
- Interpreted the scope of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as an extraordinary power requiring careful assessment of investigative needs.
- Reinforced that inherent powers must be exercised only after considering gravity, societal impact, and possibilities of tampering or flight.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms established principles on appeals against bail under Ashok Dhankad and Vipan Kumar Dhir.