Holding

Anticipatory bail may be conditioned on the accused’s availability for interrogation and may be cancelled for non‑cooperation, and the contempt notice issued to the police officer was unwarranted and set aside.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard two appeals arising from orders of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In Criminal Appeal No. 1608 of 2007 the Court considered the grant of anticipatory bail to Raninder Singh and others under Section 438(2)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and clarified that the court may impose a condition that the accused must make himself available for police interrogation and that bail may be cancelled if the condition is breached. The Court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's order but warned that the State could move for cancellation of bail if cooperation is not forthcoming. In Criminal Appeal No. 1607 of 2007 the Court examined a contempt notice issued to a Senior Superintendent of Police for loose language in an affidavit and application. It held that courts should not be oversensitive to such expressions, that contempt jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and set aside the contempt notice, maintaining the order staying the respondent's arrest. Both appeals were disposed of by the Supreme Court.

Issues considered

Whether a condition of making the accused available for police interrogation can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail under Section 438(2)(i).
Whether the State can seek cancellation of anticipatory bail if the accused does not cooperate with the investigation.
Whether the issuance of a contempt notice to a police officer for loose expressions in an affidavit constitutes contempt of court.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 438(2)(i)

Subjects

anticipatory bailSection 438bail conditionscancellation of bailcontempt of courtcontempt noticepolice affidavitSupreme CourtHigh Courtcriminal procedure

Judgment

-\
STATE OF PUNJAB A
.{
v.
RANINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC.

NOVEMBER 19, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.]

Criminal Appeal No. 160812007
Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973: c
' s. 438(2)(0-Anticipatory bail-Granted by High Court-Appeal
against-HELD: Jn view ofs. 438(2)(i), while granting anticipatory bail
the Court can lay down a condition that the accused shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required-
Purpose of such a provision is that anticipatory bail can not be D
permitted to be abused-It is made clear that in case respondents do
not cooperate with the investigation, then it is always open for the State
to move an application before High Court for cancellation of bail,
which will be decided in accordance with law.
E
Criminal Appeal No. 160712007
Contempt of Court:
Application and affidavit before High Court-Contempt notice
-- \
issued to Police Officer who sworn the affidavit for loose expressions F
occurring in the application-HELD: Normally Courts should not be
oversensitive and should not take very serious note of any loose
expressions in an application-Contemptjurisdiction is to be sparingly
exercised in very exceptional cases-However, applicant should use
proper language and state correct facts in his application-Although .G
..... >,
it is not contempt, proper decorum should be maintained-The Police
Officer had sworn the affidavit but counsel who prepared application
should have been more careful while drafting such an application-
They should not make incorrect statements:___Language used by them
307 H
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A should be in consonance with dignity of Court-On facts, it is not a
proper case where contempt notice ought to have been issued-Order
issuing contempt notice set aside-Order staying arrest ofrespondent
is maintained.

B 'Contempt of Court: The Need for a Fresh Look' by Markandey
Katju, AIR 2007 (March) (Journal Section), referred to.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1608 of2007.
C From the final Judgment/Order dated 24.5.2007 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Cr!. M.No. 33867-M/2007.
WITH
Crl.A.No. 1607 of2007.
D K.K. Khurana, A.A.G., K.K. Venugopal, Ashwani Kumar Mata,
Ravi Shankar Prasad, U.U. Lalit, L.N. Rao, Kuldip Singh, Ajay Pal,
Vaibhav Dang, Amrendra Kumar Mehta, Rashi Khurana, Atul Nanda,
Rajesh Kumar, Sandeep Bajaj (for M/S Law Associates & Co.) Arun
Monga, Rameeza and Naresh Bakshi for the appearing parties.
E
The Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER

Criminal Appeal No. 1608 of2007@ SLP (Cr!.) No. 3433 of
F 2007. ''

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
G We have perused the impugned order dated 24th May, 2007
granting anticipatory bail passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab
& Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 33867-M of2007. After hearing •'
learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that no inteference
is called for by this Court. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
H
~(.,

STATE v. RANINDER SINGH 309
-I

However, we make it clear that in case the respondents do not A
cooperate with the investigation, then it is always open for the State to
move an application before the High Court for cancellation of the bail,
which will be decided in accordance with law.
It may be mentioned here that Section 438(2)(i) of the Code of
B
Criminal Procedure is very clear that while granting anticipatory bail the
Court can lay down a condition that the accused shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. The
purpose of such a provision is that anticipatory bail cannot be pennitted
to be abused. It is therefore, implicit that whenever the Court imposes
such a condition in its order, and the accused called for interrogation or
c
for certain investigation does not appear before the investigating officer
then it will be open for the State to move the High Court for cancellation
of bail.
-\ -"
We make it clear that this order is confined only to the F.l.R. in the D
present case.
Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2007 @SLP (Crl.) No. 3514/2007 .
.
,_,.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
E
Leave granted.
. This appeal by special leave is directed against the orders dated
15.5.2007 and 31.5.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
,. '
Punjab & Haryana High Court in Cr!. Misc. No. 27116-M of2007 and
CRM No. 36313 of2007 whereby a contempt notice was issued to the F
Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana who has
sworn the affidavit along with the application. Nonnally the Courts should
not be oversensitive and should not take very serious note of any loose
expressions in the application. Contempt jurisdiction is to be sparingly
exercise in very exceptional cases, as one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) G
-.~
has observed in an article 'Contempt of Court: The Need for a Fresh
Look' published in the Journal Section of A.LR. 2007 (March Part), and
we agree with the views expressed therein. However, the applicant should
use proper language and state correct facts in his application. Although it
H
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [2007) 12 S.C.R.

A is not contempt, proper decorum should be maintained. Be that as it may,
we are of the opinion that the learned Judge should not have issued
contempt notice in the matter. The S.S.P. had sworn the affidavit but the
counsel who has prepared the application should have been more careful
while drafting such an application. They should not make incorrect
B statements. The language used by them should be in consonance with the
dignity of the Court.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we do
not think it to be a proper case where contempt notice ought to have
C been issued.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the ordei
dated 15.5.2007 we set aside the direction in the last paragraph of the
learned Single Judge's Order dated 3lst May, 2007 issuing notice to the
S.S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana.
D
The appeal is accordingly, disposed 0£
RP. Appeal disposed of.