Whether the court can direct police to arrest accused while rejecting anticipatory bail application of accused?

 Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon a decision of

this Court in M. C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and

Ors.: (2003) 2 SCC 649, wherein this Court has disapproved the

directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court, for arrest of the appellants therein.

There is no quarrel with the proposition that ordinarily, no

such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested; and such an aspect is required to be left for the investigating agency to examine, and to take such steps as may be permissible in law and as may be required.

Of course, when the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it

is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the

matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial

interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that

agency alone.

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

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2693/2022

S. SENTHIL KUMAR Vs STATE OF TAMILNADU 

 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE

Date : 24-03-2022

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

This petition, seeking to question the order dated 11.03.2022

passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal O.P.

No. 1909 of 2022, is essentially founded on the ground that the

High Court was not justified in directing arrest of the accused petitioner

while rejecting his prayer for pre-arrest bail.

Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon a decision of

this Court in M. C. Abraham and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and

Ors.: (2003) 2 SCC 649, wherein this Court has disapproved the

directions contained in the impugned order of the High Court, for

arrest of the appellants therein.

There is no quarrel with the proposition that ordinarily, no

such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting

the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to

be arrested; and such an aspect is required to be left for the

investigating agency to examine, and to take such steps as may be

permissible in law and as may be required.

However, we find the aforesaid line of arguments as also

reference to the decision in M. C. Abraham (supra) to be rather

misplaced in the present case. This is for the simple reason that

the High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest

bail (for the circumstances specified in paragraphs 14 and 15 of

the impugned order), has otherwise not given any such direction of

mandatory nature, as was noticed by this Court in the case of M. C.

Abraham (supra).

Of course, the High Court has observed in paragraph 16 of the

impugned order as under: -

“16. Pendency of claim before the Telecom Disputes

Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) cannot be an

excuse for withholding the Set Top Boxes and accessories

entrusted to the petitioner on a specific terms and

conditions. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

petitioner herein cannot have the advantage of

withholding the Set Top Boxes and accessories entrusted

to him and continue to enjoy the interim bail granted to

him earlier. Having failed to account for the Set Top

Boxes worth more than Rs.5 crores, custodial

interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to trace the

trail of missing Set Top Boxes.”

Obviously, the aforesaid observations are essentially of the

reasons assigned by the High Court in declining the prayer of the

petitioner for pre-arrest bail.

Of course, when the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it

is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the

matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial

interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that

agency alone.

We say no more.

For what has been discussed hereinabove, we find no reason to

entertain this petition.

Hence, the petition seeking special leave to appeal stands

dismissed, subject to the observations foregoing.

All pending applications stand disposed of.

(SHRADDHA MISHRA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

Print Page