TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ER ON BOARD PER RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE 1. Heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sourabh Dangi, Mr. Harsh Shrivastava, Mr. Manohar Pratap Singh and Mr. Sajal K. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for Respondent No. 4, Mr. Vijay Chawla, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 and Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 6. 2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following relief(s):- "I. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct supervision of all investigations against the Petitioner by this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of an impartial and fair investigation; and/or II. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent Agencies/Authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court the alleged material on the basis of which the Petitioner is being accused of conceptualising/conspiring/ committing the offences in the following FIRs:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es; and/or IV. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct that no new FIR or any other fresh proceeding be registered or initiated by any Respondent Agencies/Authorities based on the basis of material already in possession with any of the Respondent Agencies/Authorities without the permission of this Hon'ble Court; and/or V. That, this Hon'ble Court may grant any other relief in favour of the Petitioner, which it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of Justice." 3. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Petitioner, is a retired IAS officer who had served as a civil servant for over 34 years in the State of Chhattisgarh. At the relevant point of time, the Petitioner was posted as the Managing Director of Chhattisgarh Nagrik Apurti Nigam ('NAN')/State Civil Supplies Corporation at its headquarters in Raipur, Chhattisgarh from 29.05.2014 till 18.02.2015. As per the own statement of one Inspector R.K. Dubey, he was posted in the EOW on 06.12.2014, he apparently conducted verification of an anonymous complaint on 04.12.2014, even prior to being deputed to the EOW. It is evident that the verification of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....loss of Rs. 5.18 crores on account of unnecessary transportation of rice and salt etc. (c) The Petitioner is alleged to have received around 2 crores from the alleged scam. 6. That contrary to the allegations made by the ACB, the Petitioner is in fact a whistle blower who had brought to light the corruption racket being run in NAN prior to his appointment and had exposed individuals at the highest levels of the State Government, Bureaucracy and investigating agencies. It is for this reason that the Petitioner has become the scapegoat. The fictitious nature of the case against the Petitioner is evident from the following - A. In 2014-15, Ministers of the then ruling party in the State of Chhattisgarh, i.e. the Bhartiya Janta Party, themselves had unequivocally stated that no complaint regarding procurement of any sub-standard rice or taking bribes in NAN during the relevant period had been made. B. In a reply filed by the State of Chhattisgarh before the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in WP (PIL) No. 44/2015 it has been unequivocally stated on affidavit that the PDS system functioning in the State of Chhattisgarh during the relevant time, including ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the agencies is to either make persons who have actually committed offences approvers/protect them as a quid pro quo to them falsely implicating the Petitioner or adopt coercive measures by threatening the persons and/or family members and even their children to give false statements. Till date, despite passage of over 10 years, there has been no other material against the Petitioner apart from coerced and false statements of co-accused persons/persons who ought to have been made co-accused in the NAN case. It is clear that these persons who had given incriminating statements against the Petitioner had done so in exchange for saving their own skin and to deflect the blame onto the Petitioner for their alleged illegal acts - these persons were not named as accused in the chargesheet. The investigating officers of ACB/EOW, Raipur got the Petitioner implicated as a part of a larger political conspiracy which will become apparent from the facts that follow. 8. That abuse of process at behest of the agencies is also evident from the following chronology of events and facts in relation to the NAN case- a. The ACB/EOW, Raipur received sanction of the Central Government u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars of the registration of the NAN FIR but merely 2 days after the constitution of the SIT, the Enforcement Directorate ("ED"), Raipur registered ECIR/RPSZO/01/2019 ("NAN ECIR") under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ("PMLA") against the Petitioner and two other senior officers of NAN based on the NAN FIR and chargesheet. It is apparent that powerful persons in the ruling dispensation between 2013-2018 became concerned with the constitution of the SIT and therefore resorted to the ED to take create obstacles/deviate the investigation and to make sure nothing incriminating surfaces against them. g. Conveniently, only the main accused, the Petitioner and another senior IAS officer (who is also being targeted) were named as suspects. None of the other government servants, including those from whom cash and other unexplainable immoveable properties were actually recovered as per the case of the agencies, were named as suspects. This primarily included persons who had given incriminating statements against the Petitioner. It is apparent that this was a quid pro quo for those persons to make the Petitioner a scape-goat and get exonerated themselves. h. The N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd assets of the Petitioner and his family members are accounted for. No steps were taken to preserve the contents and integrity of the electronic devices and maintain an untampered chain of custody. From the seizure Panchnama dated 01.03.2020, it is clear that the devices were not sealed at the time of seizure nor was their hash value or IMEI number recorded. Further, devices of the Petitioner were seized even though the warrant of search was against only the Petitioner's wife and son and their beauty salon. Moreover, the devices were shown to have been copied on a hard disk on 28.02.2020 by the IT Department, even though the devices were seized by them on 29.09.2020, i.e. in a procedure completely unknown to law, the copying was done prior to the seizure leaving complete scope for tampering the record of the devices. This also explains why the CBI Manual or the Income Tax Digital Evidence Manual were not followed and no effort was made to secure the sanctity of the devices and their content. 10. Thereafter, when the data from the Petitioner's phone was allegedly extracted by the IT Department (on 11 occasions from 10.08.2020 to 16.01.2021), as per the Mazharnamas, the data was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore the ED, during which he was extensively questioned for consecutive dates. Subsequently, on 14.08.2020, this Court, in MCRCA No. 469/2020, granted anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in connection with the NAN ECIR as well pursuant to a detailed Order which took into account the applicable law and relevant factual matrix. 12. Thereafter, to further prejudice the Petitioner, on 07.11.2020, the ED filed a Special Leave Petition, being SLP(Crl) 6323-24/2020, challenging the order dated 14.08.2020 passed by this Court in MCRCA No. 469/2020 granting anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. This SLP is still pending, and no stay of the operation of the Order dated 14.08.2020 has been granted to the ED despite passage of over 4.5 years since the filing of the said Petition. in the meanwhile, the trial in the NAN FIR was progressing and having realised that the Agency does not have enough material evident to substantiate their bogus allegations, the Agency devised ways to stall the trial. As the false case built against the Petitioner in the NAN FIR was unravelling, towards end of 2021, the ED filed a Writ Petition before this Court, being WP(Crl) 506/2021 seeking a transfer of the tria....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f cash in the State of Chhattisgarh. Notably, even though the Income Tax Complaint alleges nexus of the Petitioner with several other individuals and government officials, none of their devices were seized and/or searched to verify the messages derived from the Petitioner's phone nor their statements recorded by the IT Department to the best of Petitioner's knowledge. The Income Tax Complaint was not only an attempt to multiply frivolous cases against the Petitioner, but also an attempt to increase the Petitioner's harassment by forcing him to engage in criminal cases in multiple geographies with different agencies. It was filed with the sole purpose of creating a scheduled offence, though untenable in law, for the ED. 14. Based on the Income Tax Complaint, on 18.11.2022, ED Raipur registered ECIR No. RPZO/11/2022 ("Income Tax ECIR") against the Petitioner, his son and other persons named in the Income Tax Complaint. Pertinently, the ECIR treated standalone Sec.120 B, IPC as the predicate offence (as other offences mentioned in the Income Tax Complaint are not scheduled offences in the PMLA). Notably, cognisance of Sec. 120-B, i.e. the alleged scheduled offence was in fact rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Janta Party before the High Court of Chhattisgarh seeking CBI investigation into the same allegations that were being investigated by the ED again to create a scheduled offence for the ED. Interestingly Sh. Naresh Gupta had also filed petitions in relation to the NAN case to derail the investigation being conducted by the SIT. 16. The ED was successful in causing the registration of one FIR being FIR No. 196/2023 dt. 30.07.2023 ("UP FIR") in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh (a State being governed by the Bhartiya Janta Party) and the second one being FIR No. 04/2024 dt. 17.01.2024 ("Chhattisgarh FIR") in Raipur, Chhattisgarh (which by that time was being governed by the Bhartiya Janta Party). The allegations and basis in both the aforesaid FIRs was identical and the Petitioner has been made to suffer custody in relation to both at the hands of the agencies. Relevantly, upon quashing of the prosecution complaint in relation to the Income Tax ECIR, the ED went on to illegally register ECIR/RPZO/04/2024 ("second Liquor ECIR") for the same alleged offence on 11.04.2024, using one of the FIRs i.e. FIR No. 04/2024 dt. 17.01.2024, that the ED itself had caused to be registered thus c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he CBI per se does not have consent to investigate in the State of Jharkhand in terms of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act. Nevertheless, till date, the Petitioner has not been interrogated in the Jharkhand Liquor FIR and to the best of the Petitioner's knowledge there has been no investigation whatsoever in relation to the Jharkhand Liquor FIR. It is pertinent to submit in this regard that the Petitioner never went to Jharkhand, nor did the Petitioner meet any Excise Deputy Officer of Jharkhand, yet the Petitioner was arraigned in the Jharkhand Liquor FIR solely for ulterior motives. In the meantime, noting that no proceeds of crime were traced or prosecution complaint filed in 6 years of investigation by the ED, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the prima facie view that there was no reason to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Petitioner in the NAN ECIR. With the sole intent of ensuring the continued harassment of the Petitioner and to ensure that the sword of the bail cancellation keeps hanging on the head of the Petitioner, it was submitted on behalf of the ED and the ACB, Raipur that they will place on record an affidavit in support of the contention that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny role of the Petitioner showing the completely bogus nature of the allegations made in the Affidavit. There is no explanation as to what has become of the 'ample evidence' and why the same has not been relied upon by the Agencies till date despite passage of over 1.5 years since its alleged receipt. It is clear that the same was done to merely prejudice the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the Petitioner so as to illegally seek his bail cancellation. Pertinently, neither has the Petitioner even been summoned once nor has any document been sought from him in relation to any of the FIRs mentioned in the Affidavit clearly showing that he does not have any role therein. 18. There is not even a whisper of any criminality against the Petitioner in any of the aforesaid chargesheets/prosecution complaints except the chargesheet filed by the ACB in the Rice Scam and the prosecution complaint filed by the ED in the Rice Scam. These averments are completely bogus and suffer from inherent contradictions and suppressions. Similar to the modus operandi adopted in the NAN case, since no incriminating material is available against the Petitioner, he is being sought to be implicated on the basis ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....04.2024. In fact, it is reiterated that even till date the Petitioner has not been summoned in relation to any of the aforesaid FIRs or the ED proceedings emanating from them. It is therefore clear that the Petitioner was sought to be implicated in these FIRs and ECIRs as part of a conspiracy to keep him entangled in criminal investigations, even though there is not even a single shred of evidence against the Petitioner. The implication of the Petitioner in these FIRs shows how fanciful all of the criminal cases against the Petitioner actually are. The Petitioner is currently in custody only in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. The Petitioner has been implicated in these new FIRs only as an insurance - if the Petitioner gets relief in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, then one of these new FIRs will be used to imprison him in the name of interrogation, and the cycle will continue so on and so forth. To continue the Petitioner's harassment, the Superintendent of Central Jail, District Raipur (where the Petitioner was lodged in connection with the Liquor ECIR) was made to join the conspiracy against the Petitioner and an application dated 18.10.2024 was filed before the Special Cou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....view to pro-long the pre-trial incarceration of the Petitioner and to harass and prejudice him by all means at the State's disposal. It is clear that this FIR was deliberately timed in such a manner so as to prolong frivolous criminal investigations against the Petitioner and to create a perception that the Petitioner was a serial offender. On 28.01.2025, the State of Chhattisgarh filed its Counter-Affidavit in response to SLP(Crl) No. 17659/2024, i.e. the Petition seeking regular bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. In the Counter-Affidavit, besides regurgitating unfounded allegations that the Petitioner was involved in various scams and implicated in several criminal cases, the State of Chhattisgarh now also alleged that the Petitioner was a conspirator in a scam relating to taking commissions from suppliers of manpower services, which was being investigated in FIR No. 44/2024, dated 05.10.2024, registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Economic Offences Wing, Raipur ("Manpower FIR"). Even this FIR does not name the Petitioner as an accused and was also registered based on a letter received from the ED. It is clear that the Petitioner was sought to be implicated in this new case ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Petitioner. Moreover, in this manner, the investigation is being sought to be evergreened as each new investigating agency will gain the power carry out search and seizure and then arrest the Petitioner. The intention is not to investigate any wrongdoing by the Petitioner, the intention is to use the process of criminal law to keep hounding the Petitioner. As of date, the Petitioner has been subjected to over 14 (fourteen) criminal cases, by 5 (five) investigating agencies. While the Agencies have alleged and portrayed as if the Petitioner was an extremely powerful person in the State of Chhattisgarh who was handling and directing IAS/IPS officers, it is relevant to note that the Petitioner retired as the Joint Secretary while all his batchmates were promoted to higher positions. 22. The Petitioner is not even getting his pension and other retirement benefits for which the Petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. It is submitted that if the Petitioner was an all-powerful officer as alleged by the agencies, then there was no reason for the Petitioner's pension and benefits to have been curtailed and he would not have to fight for his rights before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 18.04.2025 CBI in the Chats FIR No seizure of cash amount. No incriminating documents/material found. Shockingly, legal documents pertaining to pleadings filed by the Petitioner before various courts and his legal strategy were seized by the CBI. This is in utmost violation of the Petitioner's right to legal defence and attorney client privilege in as much confidential legal documents were being sought to seized to understand the legal strategy of the Petitioner. 23. Furthermore, despite extensive investigation in the Rice Milling FIR, DMF FIR, Mahadev FIR and Coal FIR, till date, the Petitioner has not been named as an accused in any of the Chargesheets filed in these FIRs. Pertinently, these FIRs were based on ED cases - the Petitioner is not named an accused in any of the ECIRs or Prosecutions Complaints in these ED cases. It is important to re-emphasise here that the Petitioner was not named in any of these FIRs to start with. The concern and apprehension of the Petitioner is not unfounded or illusionary. The Agencies have actually indulged in effective insurance arrests and evergreening of custody of various other persons in the State of Chhattisgarh itself. An i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08 days Date Particulars 12.06.2023 Arvind Singh arrested in Income Tax ECIR 02.04.2024 Granted bail in Income Tax ECIR despite complete stay of investigation already having been granted on 18.07.2023. 03.04.2024 Released in Income Tax ECIR 03.04.2024 Immediately picked up by the ACB Raipur from outside the premises of the Raipur Central Jail in relation to the Chhattisgarh FIR thus evergreening his arrest despite not having been questioned even once in custody before arrest. This was despite the fact that 2 co-accused persons had been granted protection in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR. 04.04.2024 Arrested in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR by ACB Raipur 01.07.2024 Arvind Singh is produced before Spl. Judge PMLA, Raipur pursuant to production warrants and arrested in the Second Liquor ECIR 13.05.2025 Arvind Singh granted bail in the second Liquor ECIR 19.05.2025 Arvind Singh granted bail in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR 24. It is the reasonable apprehension of the Petitioner that the manner in which the Petitioner has been collusively targeted and arrested successively by the Respondent Agencies in the alleged Liquor sca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... S.No. Case Details Investigating Agency Date of Chargesheet/ Prosecution Complaint No. of Accused Period of Investigation 1. ECIR/RPZO/04/2023 dated 14.10.2023 (Rice Milling ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 28.06.2024 2 526 days 2. FIR No. 01/2024 dated 16.01.2024 (Rice Milling FIR) ACB/EOW Raipur 01.02.2025 2 519 days 3. ECIR/RPZO/02/2023 dated 20.03.2023 (DMF ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 01.12.2024 16 524 days 4. FIR No. 02/2024 dated 16.01.2024 (DMF FIR) ACB/EOW Raipur 27.05.2025 9 519 days 5. FIR No. 129/2022 dated 12.07.2022 PS Kadugodi, Bengaluru 08.06.2023 (closure report qua scheduled offences) 6. ECIR/RPZO/9/2022 dated 29.09.2022 (Coal ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 09.12.2022 7 993 days 30.01.2023 8 18.08.2023 11 29.03.2025 9 Total 35 7. FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 (Coal FIR) ACB/EOW Raipur 19.07.2024 15 518 days 10.10.2024 2 Total 17 8. ECIR/RPZO/11/2022 dated 18.11.2022 (First Liquor ECIR) Directorate of Enforcement 04.07.2023 (stayed by the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....IR. Apart from this, the Petitioner is being falsely implicated in other cases as well, as mentioned in the Affidavit dated 25.09.2024 filed by the ACB, Raipur and apprehends that he will be arrested therein to ensure his pro-longed pre-trial incarceration. The Petitioner apprehends that the ACB will fabricate false material against the Petitioner and take false statements so as to create and fabricate material against the Petitioner for the purpose of optics and positioning as it has already made a false submission before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is ample material to show that the Petitioner had conceptualised and conspired in various scams as alleged in the Affidavit dated 25.09.2024. It has been contended that without prejudice to the fact that the Petitioner has nothing to do with any of the alleged cases, it is submitted that the Petitioner has been lodged in Raipur Central Jail for over 14 months now. The Petitioner has not been questioned by any of the agencies even once in relation to the other cases. If the agencies actually had to conduct any investigation, there was no embargo upon them to investigate and question while in custody. Instead, the agencies are k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Ms. Arora that there is not an iota of credible evidence against the Petitioner in any of the cases. The investigating agencies have not exercised their power to arrest in a bona fide manner, and have done so with the sole motive to sabotage Petitioner's release. Despite there being different cases being investigated by different agencies, it is pertinent to note that out of the cases in which the Petitioner is being sought to be implicated, there is an overlap of agencies and gravamen of cases. All cases have both PMLA and PC Act/IPC proceedings which are being investigated by the ED and the ACB/CBI respectively. In fact, these investigating agencies have worked in tandem with each other as all FIRs registered by ACB were registered at the instance of the ED. As such, both ED and ACB were aware about the investigation and arrests/incarceration of the Petitioner in the afore-stated matters. It has been further aruged that the NAN FIR - the entire case against the Petitioner was based on 'confessions' of perpetrators of the crime who were induced to implicate the Petitioner in return for immunity. These persons have subsequently retracted their statements against the Petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on the foundation of these so called message conversations extracted from the Petitioner's phone must fail at the threshold and further, no proceeds of crime have been found in the Liquor ECIR so what is essentially being prosecuted therein is the same act and offence as is being prosecuted in the Chhattisgarh Liquor FIR, which is FIR on which the ECIR is based. It is submitted if the Petitioner was in fact involved in scams of such magnitude as alleged, he would have been in possession of some proceeds of crime at least. However, despite not being able to trace a single Rupee of proceed of crime, despite over 10 years of investigation, the Agencies continue to harass and prejudice the Petitioner by different means. She has further argued that the Petitioner has not been named in the Rice Milling FIR, DMF Scam FIR, Coal Levy FIR, Mahadev FIR or the Manpower FIR and he has been implicated in these only through an affidavit filed by the State of Chhattisgarh before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is therefore clear that the Petitioner has been trapped in frivolous and vicious cycle of cases. New cases are being filed against the Petitioner not because of any incriminating evidence, ra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 registered by ED (Coal ECIR) 6. FIR No. 03/2024 dated 17.01.2024 registered at PS-ACB/EOW, Raipur (Coal FIR) 7. ECIR/RPZO/10/2022 dated 06.10.2022 registered by ED (Mahadev ECIR) 8. FIR No. 06/2024 dated 04.03.2024 registered at PS-ACB/EOW, Raipur (Mahadev FIR) 9. FIR No. 44/2024 dated 05.10.2024 registered at PS-ACB/EOW, Raipur (Manpower FIR) 10. FIR No. 36/2024 dated 07.09.2024 registered at PS-ACB/EOW, Raipur (Jharkhand FIR) 11. FIR No. 49/2024 dated 04.11.2024 registered at PS-ACB/EOW, Raipur (Chats FIR) 12. FIR No. RC 216 2025 A 0006 dated 16.04.2025 registered at PS-CBI/AC-1, New Delhi (Chats CBI FIR) 30. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent authorities have opposed the submissions urged by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and submits that the petition itself is legally untenable and misconceived. It is submitted that the petitioner has sought a blanket order directing the authorities for protection in 12 FIRs, which is impermissible under the settled principles of law. The Respondents have also asserted that there is no statutory provision protecting the accused in pursuant to the FI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t can grant a blanket order not to register any fresh FIR etc. or any such proceeding against the petitioner in future by any of the respondents. 34. At this stage, Ms. Arora seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the relief No. IV, in which the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court that no new FIR or any other fresh proceeding be registered or initiated by any Respondent Agencies/ Authorities based on the basis of material already in possession with any of the Respondent Agencies/Authorities without the permission of this Court. 35. In view of the above, this Court has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the prayer No. IV. 36. The petitioner in this petition has prayed for a direction to all supervision and monitoring of all investigations against the petitioner for the purpose of impartial and fair investigation. 37. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sakiri Basu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, has held in following terms :- "27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can mon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SCC 554." 38. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2021) 19 SCC 401, while dealing with the similar issue has held in paragraph-10.6 as under :- "10.6 In the case of Sanapareddy Maheedhar Seshagiri v. State of A.P., (2007) 13 SCC 164, in paragraph 31, it is observed and held as under: "31. A careful reading of the above noted judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or that the allegations contained in FIR do not constitute any cognizable offence or that the prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent abuse of the process of the Court. In dealing with such cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial intervention at the threshold of the legal process initiated against a person accused of committing offence is highly detrimental to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. can be granted on the conditions prescribed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are satisfied. At the same time, it is to be noted that arrest is not a must whenever an FIR of a cognizable offence is lodged. Still in case a person is apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR disclosing cognizable offence, as observed hereinabove, he has a remedy to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 22. As observed by this Court in the case of Hema Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 453, though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438 Cr.P.C. proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt also further passed an order that the second petitioner - A2 to appear before the investigating agency as and when required and cooperate with the investigating agency. After considering the decision of this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra), this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court restraining the investigating officer from arresting the second accused. 28. Thus, it has been found that despite absolute proposition of law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) that such a blanket order of not to arrest till the investigation is completed and the final report is filed, passed while declining to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C, as observed hereinabove, the High Courts have continued to pass such orders. Therefore, we again reiterate the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and we direct all the High Courts to scrupulously follow the law laid down by this Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and the law laid down by this Court in the present case, which otherwise the High Courts are bound to follow. We caution th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut in the present case without following the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking interim protection alleging that the petitioners are unnecessarily being harassed. 41. The issuance of such orders by High Court was taken into consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Habib Abdullah Jeelani (supra) and was again taken note of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held in categorical terms that "it is absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable to pass an order directing the police not to arrest till the investigation is completed while declining to interfere or expressing opinion that it is not appropriate to stay the investigation". It is further observed that this kind of order is really inappropriate and unseemly and it has no sanction in law. It is further observed that the courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Court on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigat....