Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Union Of India (uoi) v. Sapna Jain

Union Of India (uoi) v. Sapna Jain

(Supreme Court Of India)

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 4322-4324, 4546, 4571 of 2019 and Diary No. 15477 of 2019 | 29-05-2019

Aniruddha Bose, J.

1. Delay condoned.

2. Issue notice returnable in four weeks.

3. As different High Courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by this Court. Hence, the notice.

4. As the accused-Respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this Court in P.V. Ramana Reddy v. Union of India by order dated 27.5.2019 passed in [SLP(Crl.) No. 4430/2019] had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case.

5. Beyond the above, we do not consider it necessary to observe anything further.

6. The present matters alongwith other connected matters (SLP (Crl.) No. 244/2019, W.P. (Crl.) No. 118/2019, T.C. (Crl.) No. 3/2018, T.C. (Crl.) No. 4/2018, SLP (Crl.) No. 4634/2014, SLP (Crl.) No. 993/2016, W.P. (Crl.) No. 309/2018, W.P. (Crl.) No. 333/2018 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 34/2019) be listed before a Bench of three Judges.

SLP(Crl.) No. 4571/2019

7. Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and upon perusing the relevant material, we are not inclined to interfere. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Advocate List

  • For Appearing Parties: Tushar Mehta, SG, K.M. Natraj, ASG, B. Krishna Prasad, Parmatma Singh, Amit K. Nain, AORs, Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Rupesh Kumar, Mukul Rustogi, Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Abhishek Rastogi and Sanjeev Kumar, Advs.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI
  • HON'BLE JUDGE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Eq Citations
  • (2019) 74 GST 218 (SC)
  • (2021) 2 SCC 782
  • LQ/SC/2019/914
Head Note

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail — Divergent views taken by High Courts — Pre-arrest bail granted by High Court — Interference with — Held, as different High Courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, position in law should be clarified by Supreme Court — Hence notice issued — However, as accused-respondents have been granted privilege of pre-arrest bail by High Court by impugned orders, Supreme Court not inclined to interfere with the same — However, it is made clear that High Courts while entertaining such request in future will keep in mind that Supreme Court in PV Ramana Reddy, (2019) 1 SCC 760 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case — Constitution of India, Art. 136 (Paras 3 and 4)