Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal by Pratibha Manchanda and another (the appellants) against the State of Haryana and another (respondents) challenging the High Court of Punjab and Haryana's order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in connection with FIR No. 113 of 2022. The FIR was lodged by the appellants, who are senior citizens, alleging that they were owners and in possession of a land parcel measuring 15 Kanal 2 Marla in Village Begampur Khatola, Gurugram, for over 30 years. They claimed they never sold the land or executed any power of attorney in favor of any third party. On 28 February 2022, Appellant No. 2 discovered at the Patwar Bhawan that a person named Bhim Singh Rathi had applied for mutation of the land based on a forged and fabricated sale deed dated 24 February 2022. The FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Respondent No. 2 filed a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking anticipatory bail, which was allowed by the High Court on 31 May 2022. The Supreme Court considered the submissions of both parties. The appellants argued that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offence, the criminal antecedents of Respondent No. 2, and the fact that the investigation was at a preliminary stage. The respondent contended that the allegations were civil in nature and that he was falsely implicated. The Supreme Court analyzed the law on anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it is an extraordinary power to be exercised sparingly. The Court noted that the High Court did not consider the seriousness of the allegations, the fact that the accused had a criminal history, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting anticipatory bail and directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender and apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 Cr.P.C. - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in a case involving forgery of a sale deed and cheating of senior citizens. The Supreme Court set aside the bail, holding that the High Court failed to consider the gravity of the offence, the fact that the accused was a habitual offender, and the likelihood of tampering with evidence. Held that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, especially when the allegations involve serious economic offences and forgery of documents (Paras 10-25). B) Indian Penal Code - Forgery and Cheating - Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC - Forged Sale Deed - The appellants, senior citizens, alleged that a forged sale deed was executed in respect of their land. The Supreme Court noted that the accused had a criminal history and that the investigation was at a nascent stage. Held that the High Court erred in granting anticipatory bail without considering the seriousness of the allegations and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence (Paras 3-9, 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2 in a case involving allegations of forgery, cheating, and criminal conspiracy relating to a forged sale deed of land belonging to senior citizens.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order granting anticipatory bail to Respondent No. 2, and directed Respondent No. 2 to surrender and apply for regular bail, which would be considered on its merits without being influenced by the observations made in the judgment.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine
- especially when allegations involve serious economic offences
- forgery
- and fabrication of documents
- the court must consider the nature and gravity of the accusation
- the antecedents of the applicant
- the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice
- and the likelihood of the applicant tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses
- the power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
