Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

PANKAJ JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

SCR Citation: [2018] 9 S.C.R. 248
Year/Volume: 2018/ Volume 9
Date of Judgment: 23 February 2018
Petitioner: PANKAJ JAIN
Disposal Nature: Case Disposed Off
Neutral Citation: 2018 INSC 198
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan
Respondent: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Case Type: CRIMINAL APPEAL/321/2018
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.88 – Interpretation of– Power to take bond for appearance – Whether it was obligatoryfor the trial Court to release the appellant by accepting the bondu/s.88 on the ground that he was not arrested during the investigationor has the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 inrejecting the application for release by accepting the bond u/s.88 –Held: Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 – s.88does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court– Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose andobject of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or toany other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial –Discretion given u/s.88 to the Court does not confer any right on aperson, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given tothe Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates thatuse of word ‘may’ (in s.88) is discretionary and it is for the Court toexercise its discretion when situation so demands – Further, the wordused u/s.88 “any person” has to be given wide meaning, whichmay include persons, who are not even accused in a case andappeared as witnesses – Interpretation of Statutes.Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.88 – Release onacceptance of bond u/s.88 – Entitlement for – Held: s.88 of theCr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present ina Court – Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purposeand object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court orto any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial– The present is not a case where accused was a free agent whetherto appear or not – He was already issued non-bailable warrant ofarrest as well as proceeding of ss.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had beeninitiated – In this view of the matter he was not entitled to the benefitof s.88.

2. Case referred
3. Act
  • Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860)
  • Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988)
4. Keyword
  • Code of Criminal Procedure
  • 1973 – s.88
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2018 AIR 1155 = 2018 (5) SCC 743 = 2018 (5) Suppl. SCC 743 = 2018 (3) JT 117 = 2018 (3) Suppl. JT 117 = 2018 (3) SCALE 421