Whether accused is entitled to get Anticipatory bail if he holds a high office?

 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the petitioners are willing to join the investigation and

there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners in view of the conduct of the

petitioners and the greater the office held, the greater the

responsibility of the person as in the case of the petitioners. It

cannot be said that the petitioners held a high office, they are

ipso facto entitled to anticipatory bail.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 293/2020

ANIL KUMAR SINGH ALIA ANIL SINGH Vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA 

Date : 09-10-2020 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA MURARI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the

Constitution of India seeking directions for the anticipatory bail

application of the petitioners to be heard by the Patna High Court

which is stated to be still pending.

We put to learned counsel that it is not possible to issue

such directions but if the learned counsel for the petitioners

seeks to address us on the anticipatory bail, he may do so. Learned

counsel thereafter proceeded to address us on the plea of

anticipatory bail.

We have examined the matter on merits. The dispute emanates

from the disclosure of false information by the petitioner in his

nomination papers submitted for General Nagar Palika elections,

2007 and those allegations were found by the State Election

Commission to be correct and thus, violation of provision under

Section 447 of the Bihar Nagar Palika Act, 2007 was found. The SEC

in exercise of power as enunciated under Section 18(2) of the Act

declared the elections void. Action was directed to be taken

against the petitioners and in pursuance to the same, FIR was

lodged against them under Section 447 of the said Act read with

Section 420/34, IPC.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is

that the petitioners are willing to join the investigation and

there is no need for custodial interrogation of the petitioners.

We are unable to agree with the contention of the learned

counsel for the petitioners in view of the conduct of the

petitioners and the greater the office held, the greater the

responsibility of the person as in the case of the petitioners. It

cannot be said that the petitioners held a high office, they are

ipso facto entitled to anticipatory bail.

In view of the aforesaid we reject the prayer for anticipatory

bail and dismiss the Writ Petition making the Bail Petition before

Patna High Court infructuous.

Copy of the order be sent to the Patna High Court.

Pending application shall also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (ANITA RANI AHUJA)

COURT MASTER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Print Page