Sukhwant Singh And Others v. State Of Punjab .

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

1. Whether the court should interfere with the High Court’s order dismissing the petitioners’ application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC.
2. 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.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

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.