MUKESH KISHANPURIAversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL

                          [2010] 5 S.C.R. 702


A                      MUKESH KISHANPURIA
                                    v.
                    STATE OF WEST BENGAL
          (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3224 of 2010)
                              MAY 3, 2010
B
         [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
C         s.438 - Anticipatory bail - Rejected by High Court -
    HELD: A perusal of order of High Court and also of the
    record, indicates that there is no reason to grant anticipatory
    bail to the petitioner - However, he may apply for regular bail
    and also file an application for interim bail, which a,/Jplication
    shall be decided on the same day on which it is filed.
0
       Bail - Interim bail - HELD: The power to grant regular
  bail includes the power to grant interim bail pending final
  disposal of the application for regular bail - This power is
  inherent in the power to grant bail, particularly, in view of Article
E 21 of the Constitution which contemplates that a person
  should not be compelled to go to jail if he can establish prima
  facie that in the facts of the case he is innocent - Constitution
  of India, 1950 - Article 21.
        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal)
F   No. 3224 of 2010.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 26.3.2010 of the High
    Court at Calcutta in C.R.M. No. 3810 of 2010.
         Prashant Kumar (for Ap & J Chamb~rs) for the Petitioner.
G
        U.U. Lalit (NP), Rishi Maheshwari, Sumit Attri, Shally
    Bhasin Maheshwari, Suman Jyoti Khaitan for the Respondent.
        The following order of the Court was delivered

H                                  702
    MUKESH KISHANPURIA v. STATE OF WEST                        703
                 BENGAL
                            ORDER                                      A
       1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
    2. This petition has been filed against the impugned
judgment and order dated 26.03.2010 of the High Court of
Calcutta whereby the petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for            B
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein has been
rejected.
       3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and
order and also perused the record. We also see no reason to            C
grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
       4. However, the petitioner may apply for regular bail before
the Court concerned and alongwith the said application, he may
file an application for interim bail pending disposal of the regular
bail application. We have made it clear on a number of                 D
occasions that the power to grant regular bail includes the
power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the regular
bail application. This power is inherent in the power to grant
bail, particularly in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of
 Dlndia. We are of the opinion that in view of Article 21 of the       E
Constitution, a person should not be compelled to go to jail if
 he can establish prima facie that in the facts of the case he is
 innocent.
       5. Hence, if the present petitioner applies for regular bail
before the Court concerned, he may also file an application for        F
interim bail alongwith the same, which application shall be
decided on the same day on which it is filed, pending final
disposal of the regular bail application.
     6. We also make it clear that the Trial Court shall decide
the bail application uninfluenced by any observation made by           G
the High Court in the impugned order.
    7. The special leave petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.
R.P.                        Special Leave Petition disposed of.        H