DEEPAK ANAND Vs. STATE & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 17.01.2014, the wife of the second respondent was found dead inside the bed room of suite no. 345 at Hotel Leela Palace, New Delhi. The Station House Officer of police station Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi registered first information report (FIR) no. 64/2015 on 06.01.2015 and took up investigation into offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in such context. The police having carried out investigation submitted its final report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 14.05.2018. The Magistrate is stated to have taken cognizance on the said charge-sheet and issued summons to the second respondent in exercise of the power vested in the said court by Section 204 Cr.P.C., statedly for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

(2.) Against the backdrop of above facts, the second respondent moved an application (Bail application no. 873/2018) in the court of sessions, praying for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The said court, by its order dated 05.07.2018, granted the said prayer and directed that in the event of he being arrested by the police or at the instance of the Metropolitan Magistrate on his appearance before the said court, he shall be released on bail subject to he furnishing bail bonds in terms which have been specified and subject to conditions that have been added including inhibition against leaving India without prior permission of the concerned court.

(3.) The petitioner, a practicing advocate, having no connection whatsoever with the afore-mentioned case, has approached this Court by the present petition seeking cancellation of the aforesaid order of anticipatory bail, invoking the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 Cr.P.C., his verbal submissions being that as a vigilant citizen of this country he is entitled to raise issue of impropriety on the part of the court of sessions in granting such relief to the second accused against the backdrop of summoning order that had been passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction. Primarily, his argument is that the power to grant anticipatory bail, can be exercised only in a case where a person apprehends arrest by the police, the possibility of a person summoned by the Magistrate's Court as accused being taken in custody not being covered by such jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C.