JOGINDER @ JINDIversusSTATE OF HARYANA
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 1023
- Decided
- 8 September 2008
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
A petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for bailable offences is misconceived and cannot be entertained; custodial interrogation is not justified, and any regular bail application upon surrender must be considered independently.
Summary
Joginder was charged with alleged bailable offences and filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking pre‑arrest bail. The High Court ordered his custodial interrogation, treating the petition as valid. The Supreme Court held that Section 438 applies only to non‑bailable offences, making a petition under it for bailable offences misconceived. Accordingly, the High Court was not justified in directing custodial interrogation. The Court further clarified that if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, that application will be considered independently of the High Court’s observations. The special leave petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable when the alleged offences are bailable
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing custodial interrogation of the petitioner
- What is the effect on a regular bail application if the petitioner surrenders after a Section 438 petition
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 255
JOGINDER @ JINDI A
v.
STATE OF HARYANA
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6346 of 2008)
SEPTEMBER 8, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 438 - Grant of bail to person apprehending arrest - c
HELD: A petition u/s 438 in respect of bailable offences is
misconceived even if it is accepted that alleged offences are
bailable - High Court was not justified that custodial
interrogation was necessary- However, if petitioner surrenders
and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered D
--!
uninfluenced by any observations made by High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 6346 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.08.2008 of E
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal
Misc. No. M-20367 of 2008
Ranjit Kumar, Subodh Kumar Pathak, Shashi Ranjan, 8.
Pattanaik and Dharmendra Kumar Sinha for the Appellant. F
The following Order of the was delivered
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Since the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are G
bailable offences, the High Court was not justified in holding
that custodial interrogation was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C.
in terms relates to non-bailable offences. Therefore, a petition
under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in relation to bailable offences is
255 H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 13 S.C.R.
A mis-conceived, even if it is acceptad that alleged offences are
bailable. However, if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular
bail, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any
observations made by the High Court. The special leave petition
is disposed of accordingly.
)
B
R.P. Special Leave Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.