2018 (11) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ujari, Adv., Mr. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv., Mr. Sumit Bindal, Adv., Ms. Shivika, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv., Mr. Akshat Gupta, Adv., Mr. Pramod Dubey, Adv. And Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. At the outset, when the matter was taken up for hearing Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants, brought to our notice the fact that despite being informed that this Court had listed the case for hearing on 30.08.2018 upon urgent mentioning on the previous day (i.e. on 29.08.2018), the High Court proceeded to issue directions on 29.08.2018 at 5.20 P.M., as a result of which Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal has already been released ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... No.1/ Neeraj Singal to judicial custody until 01.09.2018. The substantive reliefs claimed by Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal read thus:- "A. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the nature of a writ directing that the condition imposed under Section 212(6)(ii) and Section 212(7) of the Act for release on bail is ultra vires, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and thus strike down the same as being unconstitutional. B. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ/direction/order in the nature of a writ directing that the condition in Section 212(8) of the Act that a person can be arrested by the SFIO, Respondent No. 2 herein, on the basis of material available in its posses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and/or police report. 7. Indisputably, Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal was sent to judicial custody in connection with the alleged offences under Section 447 of the Act in terms of a judicial order passed by the jurisdictional court. That order was in force when the writ petition was filed and the interim order to release Respondent No.1/Neeraj Singal came to be passed. The High Court issued its interim directions, prima facie, in the teeth of the decisions of this Court in Saurabh Kumar v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Another (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Others (2013) 1 SCC 314. Further, the reasons assigned by the High Court in the impugned order for grant of interim relief are not confined to the issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....However, we may observe that prima facie we find that the reasons being on the constitutional validity of provisions apart from Sections 212(6)(ii) and 212(7) of the Act ought not to have weighed with the High Court for grant of interim relief. Moreover, in any case, the High Court ought to have applied the broad contours required to be kept in mind for grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which aspect, we find, has not been adverted to at all in the impugned order. There is prima facie substance in the grievance of the appellants that the High Court has failed to consider matter such as the nature of gravity of the alleged offence. Moreover, we find that in the course of the impugned order, the High Court even proceeded to recall certa....