AMARAWATI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One of the points urged by the learned counsel for the applicants is that this Court should direct that the applicants, who are ladies, should not be arrested till the conclusion of the trial.

(2.) In the decision of a five Judge Full Bench of this Court in Dr. Vinod Narain v. State of U. P. in Writ Petition No. 3643 of 1992 (1996 Cri LJ) it has been held that this Court cannot direct consideration of bail on the same day and by a 3-2 majority it was also held that this Court cannot even direct grant of interim bail. It may be mentioned that the only 2 questions referred to the Full Bench were whether the High Court can direct consideration of the bail application on the same day it is moved, and whether this Court can direct grant of interim bail. No other question was referred. However while dealing with the questions referred Hon'ble PALOK BASU, J. (whose view has been followed by two other Hon'ble Judges) has also observed as follows :"once disclosure of cognizable offence is made, arrest of the acc+used or suspect is a "must", for there is no other known method by which he may be brought before the Court for trial".

(3.) With great respect to the said observation, in my humble opinion it is in direct conflict with the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P., 1994 (4) SCC 260 : (1994 Cri LJ 1981) and hence the matter needs to be reconsidered by a larger bench.