सुप्रीम कोर्ट: दूसरे केस में हिरासत से नहीं रोका जा सकता अंटिसिपेटरी बंधक का अधिकार

<p>New Delhi: An accused is not barred from seeking anticipatory bail in one offence merely because he is in custody or has been denied bail in connection with a different case, so long as he has not been arrested in the matter at hand, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has held.</p><p>A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by Ram Singh and set aside the Delhi High Court’s March 24, 2026, order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a 2025 FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.</p><p>Relying on the three-judge bench decision in Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S Mulchandani (2024), the court reiterated that no restriction can be read into the anticipatory bail provision that precludes a person from applying for relief in relation to an offence while in custody for another.</p><p>An accused remains entitled to seek anticipatory bail so long as he has not been arrested in connection with that specific offence, the court said.</p><p>“In the light of this decision, we are of the view that rejection of appellant’s bail in money laundering matter would not affect his right to seek for anticipatory bail in the present matter where he has not been arrested thus far,” the bench observed.</p><p>The FIR, which named MG Leasing & Finance, Mohit Gogia, Shweta Gogia and Bharat Chhabra, alleged cheating through assurances of transferring properties purchased in a SARFAESI auction and the creation of false documents. </p><p>The appellant was not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to him initially.</p><p>Investigation later turned towards him after financial transactions with the main accused came to light.</p><p>The court noted that a charge sheet had already been filed against the named accused and that the documents recovered did not, at this stage, establish a direct connection requiring the appellant’s custodial interrogation. </p><p>It therefore confirmed the interim protection earlier granted to him, subject to conditions.</p><p>The appellant was directed to appear before the investigating officer on September 25, 2026, fully cooperate with the probe, provide specimen signatures if required, and furnish bail bonds within three weeks. </p><p>He was also ordered not to threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence or leave the country without the trial court’s permission.</p>

<p>New Delhi: An accused is not barred from seeking anticipatory bail in one offence merely because he is in custody or has been denied bail in connection with a different case, so long as he has not been arrested in the matter at hand, the <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/tags/supreme-court">Supreme Court</a> has held.</p><p>A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Vijay Bishnoi allowed the appeal filed by Ram Singh and set aside the Delhi High Court’s March 24, 2026, order rejecting his anticipatory bail plea in a 2025 FIR registered under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.</p><p>Relying on the three-judge bench decision in Dhanraj Aswani vs Amar S Mulchandani (2024), the court reiterated that no restriction can be read into the anticipatory bail provision that precludes a person from applying for relief in relation to an offence while in custody for another.</p><p>An accused remains entitled to seek anticipatory bail so long as he has not been arrested in connection with that specific offence, the court said.</p><p>“In the light of this decision, we are of the view that rejection of appellant’s bail in money laundering matter would not affect his right to seek for anticipatory bail in the present matter where he has not been arrested thus far,” the bench observed.</p><p>The FIR, which named MG Leasing & Finance, Mohit Gogia, Shweta Gogia and Bharat Chhabra, alleged cheating through assurances of transferring properties purchased in a SARFAESI auction and the creation of false documents. </p><p>The appellant was not named in the FIR and no specific role was attributed to him initially.</p><p>Investigation later turned towards him after financial transactions with the main accused came to light.</p><p>The court noted that a charge sheet had already been filed against the named accused and that the documents recovered did not, at this stage, establish a direct connection requiring the appellant’s custodial interrogation. </p><p>It therefore confirmed the interim protection earlier granted to him, subject to conditions.</p><p>The appellant was directed to appear before the investigating officer on September 25, 2026, fully cooperate with the probe, provide specimen signatures if required, and furnish bail bonds within three weeks. </p><p>He was also ordered not to threaten witnesses, tamper with evidence or leave the country without the trial court’s permission.</p>

Powered by Nyaya 247 News