Existing User Account
Subscribe Premium

COVID Is Not Panacea For All Cases Of Arrest To Get Bail, Regardless Of Nature Of Accusation: Supreme Court

Mehal Jain

22 May 2021 6:01 AM GMT

    • COVID Is Not Panacea For All Cases Of Arrest To Get Bail, Regardless Of Nature Of Accusation: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court on Friday observed that apprehension of COVID cannot be cited as a ground for bail in all cases, regardless of the nature and gravity of the offence. The vacation bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose was considering an SLP against the April order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a hotel owner, in connection...

    The Supreme Court on Friday observed that apprehension of COVID cannot be cited as a ground for bail in all cases, regardless of the nature and gravity of the offence. 

    The vacation bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose was considering an SLP against the April order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court denying anticipatory bail to the petitioner, a hotel owner, in connection with an FIR under Sections 3 (Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel), 4 (Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution) and 5 (Procuring, inducing or taking person for the sake of prostitution) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. Before the HC, the State counsel, on instructions from the concerned police inspector, had apprised the High Court that secret information was received by the Police that the petitioner was indulging in immoral trafficking. Thereafter, when his hotel was raided, he managed to flee. On search of the hotel, 14 persons were arrested including two girls who were Uzbekistan nationals. It was urged that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to bring to the surface the entire gang with whom the petitioner may have nexus in the trade of immoral trafficking. In view of the same, the HC had dismissed the petition.
    On Friday, the advocate for the petitioner pleaded before the vacation bench, "Your Lordships, no women were apprehended from the premises when the police had raided the hotel. The only two women who were apprehended were my wife and a receptionist working in my hotel. The HC denied bail to me only on the grounds that the Public Prosecutor made a statement in the course of the hearing that 2 Uzbekistan girls were recovered from the hotel. But there is no material on record, nothing in the FIR also, to show the recovery of the said girls..."
    "Your Lordships, these are COVID times. Please grant me anticipatory bail", he prayed.
    "COVID comes in here also?! In a 3, 4, 5 case (sections 3, 4, 5 of the PITA, 1956)?! Where 15 customers were found in your premises? Corona is the panacea for everything?! And you are seeking anticipatory bail!", expressed Justice Maheshwari.
    "Either you surrender immediately or we will direct the SSP to arrest you!", the judge told the advocate.
    The bench then proceeded to dictate its order- "We find absolutely no reason to consider any interference in the impugned order rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail in this matter pertaining to the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of PITA, 1956, particularly, where it has come on record that the petitioner is the owner of the premises where raid was conducted"
    Moreover, "looking to the nature of accusation and overall circumstances", the bench further directed that "we are clearly of the view that the petitioner should immediately surrender before the Court concerned or the Investigating Officer latest by tomorrow, i.e. 22.05.2021. Ordered accordingly"

    "If the petitioner fails to do so, the Senior Superintendent of Police, District - S.A.S. Mohali, Punjab shall ensure that appropriate steps are taken for arrest of the petitioner", the bench directed.

    The bench also required the SSP to submit compliance report to the Apex Court within a week from Friday.

    It may be noted that the Allahabad High Court recently ruled that apprehension of death on account of reasons like the present pandemic is a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail. The HC went to the extent of saying that "the allegations may be serious against an accused but the presumption of innocence in his favour cannot be dispelled only on the basis of the allegation".

    "An accused who has not been subjected to trial and not even police investigation has been completed, cannot be compelled to surrender and obtain regular bail in the current circumstances. Even in cases where the police report has been submitted under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and summons/ warrants have been issued against him, such an accused is also required to be protected", the HC has said. The HC even stated that "established parameters for grant of anticipatory bail like the nature and gravity of accusation, etc have now lost significance on account of present situation of the country".

    In the said case, the HC granted anticipatory bail to an accused under Sections 420, 467 (which envisages a life sentence also), 468, 471, 506, 406 IPC.

    The State of UP has moved the Supreme Court challenging this order of the Allahabad High Court. SG Tushar Mehta mentioned the matter on Tuesday before a Bench headed by Justice Vineet Saran submitting that the accused was a conman and had been granted anticipatory bail solely on the basis of COVID-19. The Bench agreed to hear the matter next week.


    Tags
    Supreme CourtCovid-19COVID Is Not Panacea For All Cases Of ArrestJustice Dinesh MaheshwariJusitce Aniruddha Bose
    Next Story
    X