Supreme Court Refuses CBI Probe and Anticipatory Bail in Multiple FIRs: Sanchit Alagh vs. Union of India (2022)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether to transfer investigation to CBI and grant anticipatory bail in multiple FIRs with similar allegations.

CASE TYPE: Criminal

Case Name: Sanchit Alagh & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Judgment Date: March 28, 2022

Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2022
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Can the Supreme Court intervene and transfer investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and grant anticipatory bail when multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) with similar allegations are filed against individuals? This was the core question before the Supreme Court in a recent case. The petitioners sought the transfer of investigations of multiple FIRs to the CBI and also sought anticipatory bail. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, declined to interfere, stating that no case was made out for transferring the investigation to the CBI. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The petitioners, Sanchit Alagh and another individual, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking multiple reliefs. These included a direction to transfer the investigation of eight FIRs, and any other FIRs with similar allegations, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). They also sought anticipatory bail in relation to these FIRs. The FIRs were registered across various police stations in Delhi, Chandigarh, Pune, and Thane. The petitioners contended that the allegations in all the FIRs were identical and thus, a centralized investigation was required.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court issued a notice on November 15, 2019, and granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners while the writ petition was under consideration. The Union of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) filed affidavits in response, stating that investigations in the individual cases were being conducted according to the law.

Legal Framework

The petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, which grants the Supreme Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights. The petitioners sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest. The Court also considered the general principles of criminal investigation.

Arguments

The petitioners argued that the multiple FIRs registered against them contained identical allegations, necessitating a centralized investigation by the CBI. They also sought anticipatory bail to protect their liberty during the pendency of the investigations. The petitioners also contended that since the allegations in all the FIRs were identical, there was a need for a common investigation, which the CBI could conduct.

The respondents, namely the Union of India and the CBI, submitted that the investigations were being conducted in accordance with the law. They contended that there was no need to transfer the investigations to the CBI as the individual cases were being handled by the respective police stations.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the order. However, the implicit issues were:

1. Whether the investigations in the multiple FIRs should be transferred to the CBI.
2. Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or legal provisions in its order. The order primarily focused on the factual matrix of the case and the submissions made by the parties.

Judgment

The Supreme Court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances, held that no case was made out for interference by the Court or for transferring the investigation to the CBI. The Court also noted that the petitioners had been granted interim anticipatory bail during the pendency of the writ petition. The Court clarified that if the petitioners had been granted regular bail, they could avail the benefit of such orders. Otherwise, they were at liberty to seek regular bail in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized that the matters would be considered on their own merits at every stage.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that investigations were already underway by the respective state police departments, and there was no compelling reason to transfer them to the CBI. The Court also took into account that interim anticipatory bail had already been granted to the petitioners, and they could seek regular bail if required. The Court emphasized that each case should be considered on its merits at every stage of the proceedings.

The Court did not find any compelling reason to transfer the investigation to the CBI. The Court observed that the investigations were being conducted by the respective police stations and there was no need to interfere. The Court also observed that the petitioners had already been granted interim anticipatory bail and could seek regular bail if necessary. The Court noted:

“…no case is made out for interference by this Court and for transferring the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.”

“If that be so, the petitioners can avail the benefit in terms of such orders; otherwise, the petitioners shall have to take steps in a manner known to law to prefer appropriate applications for bail, if so advised.”

“Needless to say that the matters shall be considered on their own merits, at every stage.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ The Supreme Court will not interfere with ongoing investigations by state police unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
• ✓ Interim anticipatory bail does not guarantee regular bail; petitioners must still seek bail through appropriate legal channels.
• ✓ Each case will be considered on its own merits at every stage of the proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions, other than stating that the petitioners could seek regular bail if needed and that the matters would be considered on their own merits at every stage.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the principle that the Supreme Court will not interfere with ongoing investigations unless there is a compelling reason. It also clarifies that interim anticipatory bail does not guarantee regular bail, and petitioners must follow the established legal procedures for seeking bail. The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with ongoing investigations by state police unless there is a compelling reason to do so. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Sanchit Alagh and another individual, declining to transfer the investigations of multiple FIRs to the CBI and refusing to grant anticipatory bail. The Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the ongoing investigations and that the petitioners could seek regular bail as per the law. The Court emphasized that each case would be considered on its own merits.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Anticipatory Bail
Child Category: Transfer of Investigation
Child Category: Article 32, Constitution of India
Child Category: Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure

FAQ

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court refused to transfer the investigation of multiple FIRs to the CBI and declined to grant anticipatory bail. The Court stated that the investigations were being conducted as per law and that the petitioners could seek regular bail if required.

Q: What is anticipatory bail?
A: Anticipatory bail is a direction to release a person on bail, in anticipation of an arrest. It is granted under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Q: What does it mean when the Court says “the matters shall be considered on their own merits, at every stage?”
A: It means that each case will be evaluated individually based on its specific facts and circumstances at every stage of the legal proceedings.

Q: Can I seek anticipatory bail if I have multiple FIRs against me?
A: Yes, you can seek anticipatory bail. However, the court will consider the facts of each case and may or may not grant it.

Q: What should I do if I have been granted interim anticipatory bail?
A: If you have been granted interim anticipatory bail, you should seek regular bail through the appropriate legal channels. Interim bail does not guarantee that you will be granted regular bail.