Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Supreme Court
Interference In Matter Of Anticipatory Bail Shouldn’t Lead To Presumption That Custody Is Required: Supreme Court While Quashing Order Granting Relief To IPS Officer N Sanjay
|The appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against the Order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent Officer.
The Supreme Court has quashed an order of anticipatory bail granted to IPS Officer N Sanjay in an alleged case of corruption and observed that interference in a matter where a person comes before the Court seeking anticipatory bail does not, and should not, automatically lead to the presumption that custody would be required and he/she would be arrested.
The appeal before the Supreme Court was directed against the Order of a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in a Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), whereby the respondent Officer was granted anticipatory bail.
The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti stated, “However, that being said, to clarify the position in law, interference in a matter where a person comes before the Court seeking anticipatory bail does not, and should not, automatically lead to the presumption that custody would be required and he/she would be arrested. That is the discretion of the Investigating Agency, depending on the circumstances and the conduct of the accused.”
ASG S V Raju represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The respondent, an officer borne on the Indian Police Service, was posted as Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Andhra Pradesh and/or Director General, Andhra Pradesh State Disaster Response and Fire Services. It was alleged that the respondent manipulated tenders for the Development and Maintenance of AGNI-NOC Web Portal, Mobile App and the supply of hardware in violation of the prescribed procedures, resulting in the misappropriation of public funds.
It was alleged that he signed an Agreement with a private party (contractor) for holding awareness camps for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community members in various District Headquarters in the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The State averred that the same amounted to impropriety/misconduct on the part of the respondent falling within the net of corruption and criminality.
Reasoning
Explaining the role of the Investigating Agency, the Bench said, “The Investigating Agency is obliged to take an objective view on the requirement of custody of an accused without any bias, ill-will, or any other extraneous consideration and purely based on material.”
The Bench also noted that how in a litany of pronouncements, from Niranjan Singh v Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote, (1980) and Vilas Pandurang Pawar v State of Maharashtra, (2012) to Atulbhai Vithalbhai Bhanderi v State of Gujarat (2023), the Court has cautioned against elaborately discussing/detailing the evidence or rendering findings basis the same when seized with the question of considering whether or not to grant bail.
Thus, the Court was ad idem with the ASG that the facts and allegations were not such as would enable the grant of anticipatory bail to the respondent as had been done by the High Court. The Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.
It was further requested by the Respondent’s Counsel that the respondent, being a senior and respectable citizen, should not be unceremoniously arrested, and towards this, the Court may show indulgence and grant some time to surrender. Aceding to such request, the Bench ordered, “In the event the respondent surrenders before the Court concerned within four weeks from today and prays for bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by observations, if any, in the present Order…As an added measure, it is made clear that if the respondent be in custody, due and appropriate care will be accorded to him by the State, regard being had to his medical condition.”
Cause Title: The State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Sanjay (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 973)
Appearance
Appellant: ASG S V Raju, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, AOR Guntur Pramod Kumar, Advocates A Venkatesh, Rajni Gupta, Samarth Krishan Luthra, Hitarth Raja
Respondent: Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Siddhartha Dave, Abhishek Singh, Talib Mustafa, Harsh Srivastava, Anmol Aggarwal, Rupali Samuel, Himanshu Tyagi, AOR Dhiraj Abraham Philip