Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Direction To Give '72 Hours Notice' To An Accused If State Intends To Arrest Him

The Supreme Court set aside a direction issued by Bombay High Court to the State to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event it intends to arrest him.

Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court, the bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed.

In this case, the Bombay High Court, while disposing an Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused, directed that the accused should be given 72 hours' notice in the event that the State intends to arrest him on the registration of an FIR making out a cognizable offence. 

"The direction issued by the High Court to the effect that 72 hours' notice should be given to the first respondent in the event that the State finds it necessary to arrest him in connection with any complaint pertaining to a cognizable offence at the behest of the Joint Registrar (Audit) is manifestly incorrect in law.. Such a direction could not have been issued by the High Court.", the court said while vacating this direction.

In this regard, the bench referred to the decision in Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305. In the said judgment, it was held that a direction as to prior notice before effecting arrest could not be issued.

Case details

Vijaykumar Gopichand Ramchandani vs Amar Sadhuram Mulchandani | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1010 | SLP (Crl) 9092 of 2022 | 5 Dec 2022 | CJI DY Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha

For Petitioner(s) Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. Naresh Shamnani, Adv. Mr. Minal Chanchlani, Adv. Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR; For Respondent(s) Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Deepak Nargolkar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumik Ghosal, AOR Mr. Gaurav Singh advocate Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Adv. Mr. Shivali chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Hitesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Gursimar Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Ms. Kirti Dadheech, Adv.

Headnotes

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Bombay HC direction to give to give 72 hours' notice to an accused in the event the State intends to arrest him - Manifestly Incorrect - Such a direction could not have been issued - Referred to Union of India v Padam Narain Aggarwal (2008) 13 SCC 305.

Click here to Read/Download Order