In a significant judgment that underscores the principles of judicial discretion in anticipatory bail applications, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Deepak Aggarwal vs. Balwan Singh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 5456/2024), set aside an order by the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting ad interim bail in a corruption and forgery case. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, critiqued the nature of the ad interim relief granted, emphasizing its equivalence to a final order in substance.
Background of the Case
The appeals arose from FIR No. 239, dated July 11, 2024, lodged at Sohna Police Station, Gurugram, Haryana. The allegations involved offenses under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 7 and 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. These charges implicated public servants and others in alleged criminal misappropriation, cheating, and forgery.
The accused had approached the Sessions Court for anticipatory bail, which was denied. Subsequently, the High Court granted ad interim bail while issuing notices to the state. The first informant challenged this order before the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
1. Scope of Ad Interim Relief in Anticipatory Bail Applications: The key issue was whether the High Court overstepped its discretionary powers by granting ad interim bail, which the appellants contended effectively shielded the accused from arrest prematurely.
2. Balance Between Individual Liberty and Investigation Integrity: The Court examined whether such protection could jeopardize ongoing investigations by potentially enabling tampering with evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The apex court reiterated that while courts hold discretionary powers in granting anticipatory bail, these powers must be exercised cautiously. Quoting the earlier decision in Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar (2024 INSC 202), the bench stated:
“The power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power… While bail is a rule, anticipatory bail cannot be the rule. Interim protection in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and hamper investigations.”
The Court disapproved of the High Court’s approach, noting that directing the accused to join the investigation while simultaneously granting ad interim bail was tantamount to preemptive relief akin to a final judgment.
The Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court issued the following directives:
1. The High Court was directed to pre-pone the hearing of all bail applications to January 7, 2025.
2. All accused were ordered to remain present before the High Court during the hearing, failing which their applications would not be entertained.
3. It was clarified that the High Court should decide the bail applications on merit, uninfluenced by the prior grant of ad interim protection.
The appeals were disposed of, with the Supreme Court emphasizing that its intervention was specific to the “peculiar nature” of the relief granted and did not comment on the merits of the prosecution’s case.
Counsel Representation
The appellants (original informants) were represented by senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Naveen Pahwa, alongside a team of advocates including Mahesh Agarwal and Rishi Agrawala. The respondents (accused) had senior counsels Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Vibha Dutta Makhija, and Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, among others.
