CASE TITLE : SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ORS. ETC., SLP (Crl.) No(s).17464-17465 of 2025
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that High Courts cannot grant pre-arrest bail to the accused while refusing to quash the FIR registered against them. It also observed that at the first instance, the relief of pre-arrest bail must be sought by the accused from the Sessions Court.
In a challenge to orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, preferred by the complainant, the bench noted that the High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR. Yet, it granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons (respondents) till after filing of the charge sheet. This, in the top Court’s opinion, caused grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. Besides, there was “neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction”.
Taking the aforesaid view, the Court referred to Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, where a 3-judge bench led by ex-CJI Dr DY Chandrachud held that a High Court, while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, shall not pass order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps” either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 CrPC.
Ultimately, the High Court orders were quashed and the matter referred back to the High Court for fresh consideration of the quashing petitions on merit. It was further stated that the interim protection granted to the accused-respondents shall continue till pendency of the cases before the High Court. Also, the High Court shall decide the cases preferably within a period of four months from January 7.
