Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LAL KAMLENDRA PRATAP SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.& ORS.

Decided
23 March 2009
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, V.S. SIRPURKAR (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2009] 4 S.C.R. 1027 · 2009 INSC 386
Also cited as
  • (2009) 4 SCC 437 (23 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 2 SCC(CRI) 330 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

p. 1028, margin E

The appeal by Special leave has been filed against the impugned Judgment dl,d 3.9.2007 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Miscellane us Writ Petition No.1322712007. The aforesaid writ Petition was filed for quashing the F.l.R. in case Crime No.1133/2007 under Sections 467,468,471,420,409 and 218 1.P.C., Police Station Mahoba, District Mahoba, U.P.

p. 1028, margin F

By the impugned Judgment, the High Court refused to quash the F.l .R. but directed that if the appellant surrenders within 10 days, his bail application will be considered and disposed of expeditiously.

p. 1028, margin G

Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed.

p. 1029, margin A

By an interim order dated 30.11.2007 this Court directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the meanwhile.

p. 1029, margin A

We are today informed by Shri S.R.Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of U.P. that charge sheet has been filed and congnizance has been taken and the case is now pending before the trial Court. In these circumstances, he submitted that we should not exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution of India for quashing the F. I. R.

p. 1029, margin A

Learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that the appellant will be arrested as there is no provision for anticipatory bail in the State of U.P. He placed reliance on a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Amaravati Vs. State of U.P. 2005 Crl.L.J 755 in which a Seven Judge Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Court, if it deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, may grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail application. The Full Bench also observed that arrest is not a must whenever an F.l.R. of a cognizable offence is lodged. The Full Bench placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Joginder Kumar Vs. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J.1981.

p. 1029, margin C

We fully agree with the view of the High in Amaravati's case (supra), and we direct that the said decision be followed by all Courts in U.P. in letter and spirit, particularly since the provision for anticipatory bail does not exist in U.P. In appropriate cases interim bail should be granted pending disposal of the final bail application, since arrest and detention of a person can cause irreparable loss to a person's reputation, as held by this Court in Joginder Kumar's case (supra). Also, arrest is not a must in all cases of cognizable offences, and in deciding whether to arrest or not the police officer must be guided and act according to the principles laid down in Joginder Kumar's case (supra).

p. 1029, margin E

Since, charge sheet has been filed and cognizance has A been taken, and on the facts of this case, in our opinion, this is

pp. 1029–1030, margin H

.( not a fit case for quashing the first information report. The Appeal is dismissed, However, the appellant is granted time to appear before the trial Court on or before 15 April, 2009 and to file an

p. 1030

application for bail. If such an application is filed, the trial Court shall consider the same on its own merits in accordance with law, and if it so deems fit, grant interim bail to the appellant pending the final disposal of his bail application.

p. 1030

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court who will circulate it to all Hon'ble Judges of the High Court and send copies to all District Judges in the State. R.P. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1030, margin B