The Supreme Court ruled that when the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter.
The petition, seeking to question the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, is essentially founded on the ground that the High Court was not justified in directing arrest of the accused petitioner while rejecting his prayer for pre-arrest bail.
The division bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Aniruddha Bose noted that there is no quarrel with the proposition that ordinarily, no such mandatory order or directions should be issued while rejecting the application for pre-arrest bail that the accused person has to be arrested; and such an aspect is required to be left for the investigating agency to examine, and to take such steps as may be permissible in law and as may be required.
The court found that the aforesaid line of arguments as also reference to the decision in M. C. Abraham to be rather misplaced in the present case. This is for the simple reason that the High Court, after having found no case for grant of pre-arrest bail, has otherwise not given any such direction of mandatory nature, as was noticed by the Court in the case of M. C. Abraham.
The court stated that when the prayer for pre-arrest bail is declined, it is for the investigating agency to take further steps in the matter. Whether the investigating agency requires custodial interrogation or not, is also to be primarily examined by that agency alone.
The court dismissed the Special Leave Petition.
Case title: S. Senthil Kumar v/s State of Tamilnadu
Citation: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2693/2022