Long Delay In Lodging FIR A Valid Consideration To Grant Anticipatory Bail : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that a long delay in lodging FIR can be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.

The bench headed by Justice Ashok Bhushan observed thus while allowing the anticipatory bail plea of former Director General of Police (DGP), Punjab, Sumedh Singh Saini who had sought the bail relation to the 1991 Balwant Singh Multani murder case.

"However, considering the fact that the impugned FIR has been lodged/filed by the brother of the deceased after a period of almost 29 years from the date of incident and after a period of 9 years from the date of decision of this Court in the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (supra) and nothing is on record that in between he had taken any steps to initiate criminal proceedings and/or lodged an FIR, we are of the opinion that at 11 least a case is made out by the appellant for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438, Cr.P.C. Many a time, delay may not be fatal to the criminal proceedings. However, it always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. However, at the same time, a long delay like 29 years as in the present case can certainly be a valid consideration for grant of anticipatory bail.", the bench also comprising Justices R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed.

The FIR alleged that Balwant Singh Multani was killed in State-managed elimination around the month of December 1991. Allegedly, during the tenure of Sumedh Singh Saini as SSP, Chandigarh on the early morning of 11.12.1991 the police of Chandigarh swooped upon the residence of the deceased and took him away forcibly and illegally without assigning any reason.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had dismissed his application seeking anticipatory bail. In appeal before the Apex Court, Saini contended that the present FIR is filed with a malafide intention to harass him at the instance of the present party in power in the State. It was submitted that the present FIR is not maintainable as being a second FIR on the same set of facts and has been registered after delay of 29 years of the alleged incident.

The court noted that whether the fresh/present proceedings are permissible in law are yet to be considered by this Court in the pending proceedings for quashing the impugned FIR.  While granting him anticipatory bail, the bench observed:

"Looking to the status of the appellant and it is reported that he has retired in the year 2018 as Director General of Police, Punjab after 30 years of service and the alleged incident is of the year 1991 and even in the present FIR initially there was no allegation for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the allegations were only for the offences under Sections 364, 201, 344, 330, 219 and 120­B of the IPC, for which there was an order of anticipatory bail in favour of the appellant and subsequently the offence under Section 302 IPC has been added on the basis of the statements of Jagir Singh and Kuldip Singh – approvers only, we are of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for anticipatory bail."

CASE: Sumedh Singh Saini vs. State of Punjab [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.827 OF 2020 ]
CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, MR Shah
COUNSEL: Sr. Adv Mukul Rohatgi, Sr.  Adv Sidharth Luthra K.V. Vishwanathan

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment