TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in the State of Uttar Pradesh where Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply, the High Court can still grant pre-arrest protection in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in rare and appropriate cases; (ii) whether, after dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, further interim protection against arrest can be granted.
Issue (i): Whether, in the State of Uttar Pradesh where Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not apply, the High Court can still grant pre-arrest protection in exercise of Article 226 of the Constitution of India in rare and appropriate cases.
Analysis: The omission of Section 438 in Uttar Pradesh does not denude the High Court of its constitutional power under Article 226. That power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional situations where arrest would lead to grave injustice or miscarriage of justice. The availability of such relief cannot be treated as a statutory right, nor can Article 226 be used to create a general substitute for anticipatory bail. The exercise of jurisdiction must remain cautious, exceptional, and guided by the facts of the case.
Conclusion: The High Court can, in appropriate and exceptional cases, grant pre-arrest relief under Article 226, but only sparingly and with great circumspection.
Issue (ii): Whether, after dismissal of a writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR, further interim protection against arrest can be granted.
Analysis: Interim protection under Article 226 is ancillary to the main relief. Once the writ petition challenging the FIR is found meritless and dismissed, there is no surviving basis for continuing or granting further interim protection against arrest on the same petition. The interim order already granted may continue only as directed by the Court, but no fresh post-dismissal relief can be fashioned from the dismissed writ proceeding.
Conclusion: Further interim protection against arrest cannot be granted after dismissal of the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional power under Article 226 remains available in rare cases for pre-arrest protection, but the appeal failed because the challenge to the FIR was rejected and no additional relief could survive after that dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: Even where a statutory provision for anticipatory bail is unavailable, the High Court's Article 226 power may be invoked only exceptionally for pre-arrest protection, and such interim relief cannot subsist independently once the substantive writ seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed.
TaxTMI 
