Sukhwant Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners challenged a judgment and order dated 24-3-2009 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, which had dismissed their application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Upon hearing counsel for the petitioners, the court declined to interfere with the High Court’s decision. While disposing of the petition, the court reiterated the legal position on the inherent power to grant interim bail pending the final disposal of a regular bail application and issued a direction concerning consideration of interim bail if the petitioners surrender.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the court should interfere with the High Court’s order dismissing the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.

Whether a court hearing a regular bail application possesses inherent power to grant interim bail pending the final disposal of that application, in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437; (2009) 4 Scale 77	A court hearing a regular bail application has inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application.	The court followed and reiterated this principle, underscoring that such power exists and should be exercised in appropriate cases, consistent with Article 21.
Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14; JT (2008) 11 SC 609	A person’s reputation is a valuable asset and a facet of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.	Cited to explain that requiring an applicant to undergo incarceration while a bail application is pending can cause irreparable reputational harm, reinforcing the rationale for interim bail power.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2009) 4 SCC 437; (2009) 4 Scale 77

A court hearing a regular bail application has inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application.

The court followed and reiterated this principle, underscoring that such power exists and should be exercised in appropriate cases, consistent with Article 21.

Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14; JT (2008) 11 SC 609

A person’s reputation is a valuable asset and a facet of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Cited to explain that requiring an applicant to undergo incarceration while a bail application is pending can cause irreparable reputational harm, reinforcing the rationale for interim bail power.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court declined to interfere with the High Court’s dismissal of the anticipatory bail application. It then articulated the legal framework governing interim bail in the context of regular bail applications:

Relying on Kamlendra Pratap Singh, the court reiterated that a court hearing a regular bail application has inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal.

The court grounded this view in Article 21 of the Constitution, which protects life and personal liberty, emphasizing that judicial discretion in bail matters must account for these constitutional guarantees.

As a practical matter, the court observed that regular bail applications are often listed after a few days to obtain and review the case diary from the police, during which the applicant may be jailed.

Such interim incarceration can irreparably tarnish the applicant’s reputation. Citing Deepak Bajaj, the court recognized reputation as a valuable asset and a facet of Article 21, supporting the necessity of interim bail to prevent undue harm.

Accordingly, the court affirmed that the power to grant bail includes the inherent power to grant interim bail, though its exercise remains a matter of judicial discretion in the facts of each case.

Applying these principles to the present matter, the court directed that if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and seek interim bail pending the final disposal of their bail application, that request should be considered and decided on the same day.

Holding and Implications

DISPOSED OF. The court declined to interfere with the High Court’s order dismissing anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. It reiterated the principle that courts hearing regular bail applications have inherent power to grant interim bail, consistent with Article 21.

Implications:

For the petitioners: If they surrender and apply for interim bail pending their regular bail application, the court concerned must consider and decide the interim bail application on the same day.

For broader practice: The order reaffirms, without creating new precedent, that courts possess inherent power to grant interim bail to protect personal liberty and reputation under Article 21 while a regular bail application is pending.

Sukhwant Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab .

Order

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 24-3-2009 of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh whereby the application under Section 438 CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail has been dismissed. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

2. However, following the decision of this Court in Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P (2009) 4 SCC 437, (2009) 4 Scale 77 we reiterate that a court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life and liberty of every person.

3. When a person applies for regular bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the meantime the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant is released on bail thereafter, his reputation may be tarnished irreparably in society. The reputation of a person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 16 SCC 14, JT (2008) 11 SC 609. Hence, we are of the opinion that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly there.

4. In the present case, if the petitioners surrender before the court concerned and makes a prayer for grant of interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application, the same shall be considered and decided on the same day.

5. With the abovesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.

SLP (Crl.) No. 3529 of 2009, decided on May 18, 2009

Sukhwant Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Sukhwant Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab .

Comments