The Court held that an anticipatory bail petition seeking protection against apprehended arrest is premature where the investigating officer has not yet obtained approval for arrest. The petition was disposed of with directions to provide one week's notice before any arrest is effected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~24
MANISH @ MANISH SODA ..... Petitioner Represented by: Mr. Roshan Lal, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.
BAIL APPLN. 55/2019 and Crl.M.B. 31/2019 (interim bail)
Notice. Learned APP for the State accepts notice. On instructions from the investigating officer she states that only notice to join investigation was given to the petitioner and no approval for arrest of the petitioner has been taken as yet.
In view of the fact that no approval for arrest of the petitioner is taken as yet by the investigating officer from the competent authority, the present petition seeking anticipatory bail on an apprehension of arrest is premature.
Petition and application are disposed of with directions to the investigating officer that as and when approval of arrest is sought for and granted qua the petitioner, one weeks’ notice prior to arrest will be given to him. Order dasti.
MUKTA GUPTA, J.
JANUARY 11, 2019 /‘ga’
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an anticipatory bail petition is maintainable when no approval for arrest has yet been granted.
What steps the investigating officer must take before seeking approval for the petitioner's arrest.
Manish @ Manish Soda
State
Mukta Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
