High CourtDivision Bench2007-11-19Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608/2007 and 1607/2007 di...

State of Punjab v Raninder Singh and Anr.

Case / Petition Number:Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608 of 2007 and 1607 of 2007

Neutral Citation:2007 (12) SCR 307

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Mathur
Markandey Katju
Judgment Date: 2007-11-19
Court Decision / Holding: Criminal Appeal No. 1608/2007: No interference; appeal dismissed; anticipatory bail granted with a condition enabling interrogation; if the respondents do not cooperate, the State may move the High Court for cancellation of bail, to be decided in accordance with law. The order is confined to the FIR in question. Contempt Appeal No. 1607/2007: Contempt notice issued to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana was not maintained; the Court sets aside the contempt notice and disposes of the appeal.
Final Disposition: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1608/2007 and 1607/2007 disposed: 1608/2007 dismissed (bail condition affirmed with possibility of cancellation on non-cooperation); 1607/2007 contempt notice set aside and appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

State of Punjab

Respondents

Raninder Singh
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• 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.)

Counsels for Respondents

• Arun Monga
• Rameeza
• Naresh Bakshi

Case Synopsis & Summary

State of Punjab v Raninder Singh and Anr. is a Supreme Court decision addressing two connected matters arising from Criminal Appeal No. 1608/2007 (SLP (Criminal) No. 3433/2007) and Criminal Appeal No. 1607/2007, concerning anticipatory bail under Section 438(2)(i) Cr.P.C. and contempt of court. The Court reiterates that while granting anticipatory bail, a High Court or the Sessions Court can impose conditions, including a requirement that the accused make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required. The core rationale is to prevent abuse of anticipatory bail; if the accused cooperates and participates in investigations, bail should not be cancelled. However, if cooperation is lacking, the State may move the appropriate court for cancellation of bail, to be decided in accordance with law. The decision emphasizes that the bail condition is confined to the FIR in the present case. In the separate contempt appeal, the Court stresses that contempt jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. While acknowledging the need for decorum, it holds that the contempt notice against the Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana should not have been issued and sets aside that part of the order, disposing of the appeal. The Bench underscores the dignity of the court and the necessity for precise, factual pleadings."

Provisions of Law Cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)Section 438(2)(i)CrPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Contempt jurisdiction is sparingly exercised in exceptional cases
Language and decorum must conform to the dignity of the Court
Anticipatory bail should not be allowed to be abused; conditions may be imposed to ensure cooperation with investigation

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The applicants contend that under Section 438(2)(i) CrPC a court granting anticipatory bail can and should impose a condition that the accused must appear for interrogation as and when required by the authorities. This provision is intended to prevent abuse of anticipatory bail. They argue that if the accused cooperates with the investigation, bail should not be cancelled; however, if there is non-cooperation or evasion, the State must be free to seek cancellation of bail, with such cancellation to be decided in accordance with law. The order under challenge is argued to be appropriately limited to the FIR in the present case, and the Court should not interpret the provision to fora beyond its scope.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that while contended, the court must maintain a balance between bail and fair investigation. In the contempt matter, they emphasise the need for maintaining decorum and proper language in pleadings, arguing that contumacious statements or misstatements should be dealt with under contempt provisions. They assert that contempt, when invoked, should be based on clear and precise factual statements and that the Court should not be overly technical or repressive in a manner that stifles legitimate pleadings.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against State of Punjab v Raninder Singh and Anr. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

-\ A .{ ' # STATE OF PUNJAB _v ._ RANINDER SINGH AND ANR. ETC. NOVEMBER 19, 2007 B # **[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.]** _Criminal Appeal No. 160812007_ _Code a/Criminal Procedure, 1973:_ _s. 438(2)(0-Anticipatory bail-Granted by High Court-Appeal against-HELD: Jn view of s. 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 requiredPurpose of such a provision is that anticipatory bail can not be 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._ c D 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-Contempt jurisdiction_ 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 applicationThey should not make incorrect statements:___Language used by them_ 307 H 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 of respondent 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 ~( ., 309 -I .. ,_,. E F ## STATE _v._ RANINDER SINGH 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 c such a condition in its order, and the accused called for interrogation or 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. 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 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.) 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 G 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 3 lst May, 2007 issuing notice to the S.S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. D The appeal is accordingly, disposed 0£ RP. Appeal disposed of.