The Supreme Court has observed that the rejection of pre-arrest bail by the High Court, only on the ground that in the previous SLP, the petitioner did not clearly disclose before the Supreme Court as to the pending pre-arrest bail application in the High Court, cannot be countenanced.

A Bench comprising Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Hrishikesh Roy was hearing the matter wherein the Rajasthan High Court had declined the pre-arrest bail plea of the petitioner solely on the ground that he had concealed the fact concerning the pendency of Anticipatory Bail Application (in the High Court) from the Supreme Court during the earlier round of litigation.

The High Court while rejecting the anticipatory bail of the petitioner noted that facts were concealed before the Apex Court and thus held "[The] petitioner had hidden the facts that the anticipatory bail petition was pending before this (High) court. [The] said S.L.P. was withdrawn with liberty that the petitioner shall file the anticipatory bail application before the concerned court within a period of three weeks but the petitioner had not filed the said application before the concerned court because his anticipatory bail application was pending in this (High) court."

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra on behalf of the petitioner had submitted before the Supreme Court that there has not been any intentional misrepresentation or concealment of any material fact because the earlier SLP (which was later withdrawn by the petitioner) was filed only against a limited issue.

In this case, it was contended by the petitioner (both before Supreme Court and High Court) that the FIR was filed in the year 2014 in relation to the alleged incident of 2013 wherein a negative final report was submitted by the Police. The complainant filed the protest petition after three years, because as per the petitioner, in the meantime, the petitioner's father had lodged an FIR against the complainant and her relatives in which, charge sheet was filed against them.

The Supreme Court while issuing notice on September 3, 2021 in the fresh Special Leave Petition (SLP) petition filed against the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Single Bench of the High Court, had granted interim relief by providing that the petitioner shall not be arrested.

"The material aspects relating to the background facts as also the surrounding factors have not gone into consideration of the High Court. We are of the view that in any case, protection granted to the petitioner by the order dated 03.09.2021 deserves to be continued. Accordingly, the said order dated 03.09.2021 is made absolute", said the Supreme Court, while disposing of the petition.

Cause Title- Gajendra Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Click here to read/download the Order



Justice Dinesh MaheshwariJustice Hrishikesh RoyBail

Puneet Deshwal