PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATELversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                     [2010] 8 S.C.R. 211


           PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL                           A
                               V.
               STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
      (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1923 of 2010)

                        JULY 8, 2010
                                                                   B
     [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.]

    Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

    s. 439(2) r!w s. 482 ·- Cancellation of anticipatory bail -    c
HELD: Principles normally required for granting regular bail
or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to facts and
nuances of each case - Jn the instant case, there being
different versions in three different complaints and a/legations
with regard to certain offences sought to be added at a later
                                                                   0
stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing
application u/s 439(2) rlw s.482
                                       .
     Three different complaints were made to police
authorities with regard to incident stated to have taken
place on 11.9.2008. In one complaint, it was alleged that          E
at the instance of respondent nos. 2 and 3 a mob illegally
entered the property of the complainant and his family
members, threatened to dispossess them and to kill them
if they resisted. It was, thereafter, alleged that the mob
returned within half an hour and caused injuries to the            F
complainant and his associates. In yet another complaint,
allegations of snatching, theft of cash and ornaments and
certain car accessories were also included. Respondent
nos. 2 and 3 applied for and were granted anticipatory bail
by the Court of Session. The petition filed before the High        G
Court u/ss 439(2) and 482 CrPC for cancellation of the
anticipatory bail was dismissed. Aggrieved, one of the
complainants filed the petition.

                             211                                   H
    212      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A         Dismissing the petition, the Court

       HELD: 1. The principles normally required to be
  followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail
  have to be applied according to the facts and
  circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the
6 broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail,
  no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for universal
  application, as each case for grant of bail has to be
  considered on its own merits and in the facts and
  nuances of each case. [para 14] [218-G-H; 219-A]
c
       State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 Suppl. (3)
    SCR 454 = (2005) 8 sec 21 - relied on.

                                                      =
       Puran vs. Rambilas & Anr. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 432 (2001)
D 6 SCC 338; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan
  Kumar Singh 2003 (3) SCR 485          =(2003) 6 SCC 175;
  Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor,
                                                      =
  High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCR 1078 (2008)
  5 SCC 368; State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma 1997
  Suppl. (3) SCR 737 = (1997) 7 SCC 187; and Anil Kumar
E Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 Suppl. (1) SCR 923
    =(2006) 9 sec 425 - referred to.

       1.2 In the instant case, on account of the different
  versions noticed in the three different complaints made
F in respect of the incident of 11.9.2008, and having regard
  to the fact that allegations with regard to offences
  punishable u/ss 395, 397, 467, 468 and. 471 l.P.C. were
  sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no
  case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's
G application u/s 439(2) read with s.482 Cr.P.C. [para 15]
  [219-B-C]
                         Case Law Reference:
      2001 (3) SCR 432           referred to         para 7
H
   PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF                 213
                GUJARAT & ORS.
   2003 (3) SCR485              referred to            para 8       A
   2008 (3) SCR 1078            referred to            para 9

   1997 Suppl. 3 SCR 737 referred to                   para 10

   2006 Suppl. 1 SCR 923 referred to                   para 10 ·
                                                                    B
   2005 Suppl. 3 SCR 454 relied on                     para 14

     CRIMINAL APPELLATE              JURISDICTION         : SLP
 (CRIMINAL) No.1923 of 20110

     From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.201 Oof the High         C
 Court of Gujarat at Ahemedabad in Criminal Misc. Application
 No. 12865 of 2009.

      Yatin N. Oza, 8. B. Naik, S. Udaya Ku:nar Sagar, Bina
 Madhavan, Roma I. Fidelis, Shwetank Sailakwal (for Lawyer's        D
 Knit & Co.) for the Petitioner.

     Jaideep Gupta, D.N. Ray, Parthiv Shah, Lokesh K.
 Choudhary, Pradhuman Gohil, Sumita Ray, Hemantika Wahi,
 Jesal for the Respondents.
                                                                    E
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In connection with an incident
  which is said to have occurred on 11th September, 2008 at .
  about 11.00 a.m. and continued even thereafter, a complaint F
  was made at about 5.30 p.m. to the Police Inspector, Anand
  Police Station, by one Patel Bipin Dahyabhai and three others ..
  In the said complaint it was alleged that on.the said date at
  11.00 a.m. the Respondent No.2 and .his associates together
  with a mob of about 20 persons carrying sticks, scythes and G
  arms, illegally entered into Nidhwad Survey No.66, which the
· complainant contended belonging to him and his family·
  members, and threatened to dispossess them by force from
  the said land and even held out threats to kill the cpri1plainant
  and his family members if they resisted.
                                                                    ·H
    214     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A       2. From the contents of the complaint itself it is clear that
  immediately after the said incident the petitioner tried to lodge
  a complaint with the Police Inspector of Anand Police Station,
  but such complaint was not registered and within half an hour
  thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the complainant
B and his associates with sticks and scythes and caused serious
  injuries to the petitioner herein and some of his other
  associates who had to be taken to the Anand Suvidha Hospital
  for treatment. In the written complaint it was mentioned that
  besides causing serious injuries to the complainant and his
c group, the Respondent No.2 and his associates caused
  damage to the vehicles belonging to the petitioner. Since the
  complaint was not registered, the petitioner and his associates
  were said to have gone to the Office of the D.S.P., where they
  were informed that the said Officer was not available and,
   ultimately, the written complaint was made, in which another
0
  incident allegedly involving the snatching and theft of cash and
   ornaments from one Manishbhai Patel and certain other car
  accessories, was also included.

        3. After the said written complaint had been made, a First
E Information Report was also recorded at the instance of the
  petitioner herein by the P.S.O., Sanand District, Ahmedabad
  (Rural), on 11th September, 2008, at 10.15 p.m. at V.S.
  Hospital, where the complainant had been referred for
  treatment. In the First Information Report it was stated by the
F petitioner that when the mob of 30 to 40 persons rushed
  towards the informant and his brother and nephew, the
  Respondent No.2 and his son, Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel, were
  standing on the road beside their car and with the help of signs
  they are alleged to have directed the attackers to assault the
G petitioner and his family members. According to the
  Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is yet another version of the
  incident contained in a letter addressed by the petitioner and
  others to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, wherein it was
  shown that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present at Village
H Nighrad at the time of the alleged offence and after having
  PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF                    215
      GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
 directed as to how the entire operation was to be carried out,        A
 they left the place. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter
 applied for anticipatory bail and the same was allowed by the
 Additional Session$ Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
 Ahmadabad (Rural),' Mirzapur, by his order dated 1 tth
 November, 2009. While granting the prayer of the Respondent           B
 Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned trial court
 imposed various conditions to ensure that the investigation was
 not compromised in any way or that the Respondent Nos.2 and
 3 cooperated with the investigation.

       4. The said order allowing the prayer of the Respondent         C
 Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail was thereafter
 challenged by the petitioner herein before the High Court. The
 High Court, upon considering the material available and after
 considering the various decisions of this Court laying down the
 parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, dismissed the              D
 petitioner's application under sections 439(2) and 482 of the
 Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 11th
 November, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
 Judge and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the
 Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein.                                        E

      5. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the
 complainant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the
 High Court upholding the order of the trial court granting
 anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection         F
 with the F.1.R. dated 11th September, 2008.

       6. Extensive submissions were made by Mr. Yatin N. Ojha,
  learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in
· support of his contentions that not only had the trial court erred
  in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, but     G
  that the High Court had also erred in confirming the order of
  the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Ojha submitted that
  in the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail
  granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, in connection with the
  complaint filed by the petitioner, was liable to be set aside. Mr.   H
    216     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2010] 8 S.C.R.


A Ojha urged that when such serious charges in respect of
  offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 395,
  397, 467, 468 and 471 1.P.C. had been made against the
  Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their associates, the learned
  Additional Sessions Judge, having regard to the gravity of the
B offence, ought not to have allowed the prayer of the Respondent
  Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail.

       7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ojha firstly
  referred to the decision of this Court in Puran vs. Rambi/as &
  Anr. [(2001) 6 SCC 338], in which the grounds for cancellation
C of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. fell for consideration and
  it was held that an order granting bail, by ignoring material and
  evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be
  perverse and contrary to principles of law and such an order
  would itself provide a ground for moving an application for
D cancellation of bail. It was further observed that such ground for
  cancellation of bail would be different from the ground that the
  accused had misconducted himself or that some new facts
  called for cancellation of bail.

E      8. Mr. Ojha then referred to the decision of this Court in
  Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh
  [(2003) 6 sec 175] in support of his submissions that there
  was no compulsion that all facts and details relating to the
  offence are to be included in the F.l.R. This Court observed that
F the information given must disclose the commission of a
  cognizable offence and must provide a basis for the Police
  Officer to suspect the commission of such an offence. Mr. Ojha
  submitted that in the instant case certain information was
  provided in the F.l.R. which was subsequently supplemented by
G addition of other charges upon further investigation into the
  complaint.

       9. Mr. Ojha submitted that the said view was subsequently
  reiterated by this Court in various cases and as recently as in
  the case of Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public
H Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC
 PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF                  217
     GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
368), wherein it was reiterated that since in the F.l.R. the        A
accused persons have been nalTled and overt acts on their part
have also been mentioned, it was not necessary that each and
every detail of the incident was to be stated. It was further
observed that a First Information Report is not meant to be
encyclopaedic.                                                      B

      10. Mr. Ojha submitted that the grant of anticipatory bail
to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was in violation of the principle~
laid down by this Court in State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Ani/
Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187), in which the factors to be
considered in exercise of the discretionary power were              C
considered. The said case involved a member of the
Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh, who
was also a Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government
for three years and was the son of a former Union Minister. It
was held that in appropriate cases anticipatory bail should not     D
be granted to· persons holding high positions and/or wielding
considerable influence and that the investigating agencies
would be better placed to elicit more useful information and
material during custodial interrogation and that the High Court
had erred in ignoring the apprehension expressed by C.8.1. that     E
considering· the high office held by the applicant and wide
influence that he could wield, the C.B.I. would be subjected to
a great handicap in the interrogation process in case of grant
of pre-arrest baiL Reference was also made to the decision of
this Court in Anil Kumar Tu/siyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr.         F
[(2006) 9 sec 425), wherein it was indicated that among the
relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of non-
bailable offences, was the gravity and the nature of the offence.
Mr. Ojha urged that the decision in the said case was clearly
attracted to the facts of the instant case, having regard to the    G
gravity of the offences complained of against the Respondent
Nos.2and 3.

     11. Mr. Ojha submitted that whether the Respondent Nos.2
and 3 have abused the privilege of anticipatory bail or not was
not the only consideration for exercise of power under Section      H
    218      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 8 S.C.R.


A 439(2) Cr.P.C., what was equally important was the
  correctness of the manner in which the respondents had been
  admitted to bail by the trial court. Mr. Ojha urged that having
  regard to the gravity of the offences alleged, both the Additional
  Sessions Judge as well as the High Court had erred in granting
B anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the said
  orders were liable to be set aside.

       12. Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Ms. Hemantika
  Wahi supported the case of the petitioner and contended that
  notwithstanding the fact that the investigation had been
C completed, custodial interrogation of Respondent Nos.2 and 3
  was still required in order to elicit further evidence in connection
  with the case.

       13. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it was
D submitted that it is only after considering the various materials
  available on record in respect of the purported incident the
  prayer of the said respondents for grant of anticipatory bail was
  allowed. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate
  appearing with Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate,
E who had commenced the submissions on behalf of the said
  respondents, urged that except for the statement made on behalf
  of the State of Gujarat that custodial interrogation of the
  Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was necessary in connection with the
  investigation into the complaint made by the petitioner, no other
F case has been made out for cancellation of such bail.

        14. The decisions cited by Mr. Ojha in support of his
  contentions, lay down the principles, which are normally
  required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory
  bail, but the same have to be applied according to the facts
G and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the
  broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no strait-
  jacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as
  each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own
  merits and in the facts and nuances of each case. In fact, the
H principles laid down by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani
 PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF                    219
     GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]
Tripathi [(2005) 8 sec 21], broadly covers the matters to be         A
considered in an application for grant of bail, but even then the
same may not fully cover the fact situation of each case.

     15. In the instant case, on account of the different versions
noticed in the three different complaints made in respect of the
                                                                     8
incident of 11th September, 2008, and having regard to the fact
that allegations with regard to offences under Sections 395,
397, 467, 468 and 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a
later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for
allowing the petitioner's application under Section 439(2) read      C
with Section 482 Cr.P.C.

      16. Accordingly, while dismissing the Special Leave
Petition, filed by Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel, we also make
it clear that any observation made in this order shall be deemed
to have been. made only for .the purposes of disposing of the        D
Special Leave Petition and not for any other purpose.

       17. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly.

R.P.                        Special Leave Petition dismissed.