Supreme Court limits High Court's interim power, emphasizes restraint in bail matters

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the FIR and directing the Magistrate to grant bail to Respondents, emphasizing that Article 226 does not permit such interim actions. The Court held that the High Court erred in exercising its power under Article 226 for interim relief, citing precedents that such power should be sparingly used. The matter was remanded to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the bail application in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations in the complaint.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to High Court order quashing FIR, legality of direction to Magistrate for bail, exercise of power under Article 226 for interim relief.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the challenge to the High Court order in a Criminal Writ Petition where the Appellant sought to quash the FIR against Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Appellant contended that the High Court erred in directing the Magistrate to grant bail to the Respondents upon bail application, citing legal contentions and judgments supporting their position. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 justified the High Court's order, emphasizing the need for interim relief due to the nature of allegations and the status of the Respondents. The Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand also opined against the High Court's direction post disposal of the writ petition. The Supreme Court carefully examined the impugned order, noting that the High Court should not have given the direction to the Magistrate after declining to quash the FIR, citing precedents that Article 226 does not permit such interim actions. The Court referred to the Kartar Singh case, emphasizing that the power to entertain bail applications under Article 226 should be sparingly exercised, only in rare and extreme circumstances. The Court found that the High Court's direction for bail was contrary to established law, as it lacked justification for exercising power sparingly. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for reconsideration of the bail application in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations made in the complaint.

---