[2010] 8 S.C.R. 211 PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL A V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1923 of 2010) JULY 8, 2010 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439(2) r!w s. 482 ·- Cancellation of anticipatory bail - c HELD: Principles normally required for granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to facts and nuances of each case - Jn the instant case, there being different versions in three different complaints and a/legations with regard to certain offences sought to be added at a later 0stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing application u/s 439(2) rlw s.482 .

Three different complaints were made to police authorities with regard to incident stated to have taken place on 11.9.2008. In one complaint, it was alleged that E at the instance of respondent nos. 2 and 3 a mob illegally entered the property of the complainant and his family members, threatened to dispossess them and to kill them if they resisted. It was, thereafter, alleged that the mob returned within half an hour and caused injuries to the F complainant and his associates. In yet another complaint, allegations of snatching, theft of cash and ornaments and certain car accessories were also included. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 applied for and were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session. The petition filed before the High G Court u/ss 439(2) and 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail was dismissed. Aggrieved, one of the complainants filed the petition. 211 H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The principles normally required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the 6 broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each case. [para 14] [218-G-H; 219-A] c

State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 Suppl. (3) SCR 454 = (2005) 8 sec 21 - relied on. Pu ran vs. Rambilas & Anr. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 432 =(2001) D 6 SCC 338; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh 2003 (3) SCR 485 = (2003) 6 SCC 175; Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCR 1078 =(2008) 5 SCC 368; State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma 1997 Suppl. (3) SCR 737 = (1997) 7 SCC 187; and Anil Kumar E Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 Suppl. (1) SCR 923 =(2006) 9 sec 425 - referred to. 1.2 In the instant case, on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made F in respect of the incident of 11.9.2008, and having regard to the fact that allegations with regard to offences punishable u/ss 395, 397, 467, 468 and. 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's G application u/s 439(2) read with s.482 Cr.P.C. [para 15] [219-B-C] Case Law Reference: 2001 (3) SCR 432 referred to para 7 H PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 213 GUJARAT & ORS. 2003 (3) SCR485 referred to para 8 A 2008 (3) SCR 1078 referred to para 9 1997 Suppl. 3 SCR 737 referred to para 10 2006 Suppl. 1 SCR 923 referred to para 10 · B 2005 Suppl. 3 SCR 454 relied on para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRIMINAL) No.1923 of 20110

From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.201 Oof the High C Court of Gujarat at Ahemedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12865 of 2009. Yatin N. Oza, 8. B. Naik, S. Udaya Ku:nar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Roma I. Fidelis, Shwetank Sailakwal (for Lawyer's D Knit & Co.) for the Petitioner. Jaideep Gupta, D.N. Ray, Parthiv Shah, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Pradhuman Gohil, Sumita Ray, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In connection with an incident which is said to have occurred on 11th September, 2008 at . about 11.00 a.m. and continued even thereafter, a complaint F was made at about 5.30 p.m. to the Police Inspector, Anand Police Station, by one Patel Bipin Dahyabhai and three others .. In the said complaint it was alleged that on.the said date at 11.00 a.m. the Respondent No.2 and .his associates together with a mob of about 20 persons carrying sticks, scythes and G arms, illegally entered into Nidhwad Survey No.66, which the · complainant contended belonging to him and his family· members, and threatened to dispossess them by force from the said land and even held out threats to kill the cpri1plainant and his family members if they resisted. ·H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R.

A 2. From the contents of the complaint itself it is clear that immediately after the said incident the petitioner tried to lodge a complaint with the Police Inspector of Anand Police Station, but such complaint was not registered and within half an hour thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the complainant B and his associates with sticks and scythes and caused serious injuries to the petitioner herein and some of his other associates who had to be taken to the Anand Suvidha Hospital for treatment. In the written complaint it was mentioned that besides causing serious injuries to the complainant and his c group, the Respondent No.2 and his associates caused damage to the vehicles belonging to the petitioner. Since the complaint was not registered, the petitioner and his associates were said to have gone to the Office of the D.S.P., where they were informed that the said Officer was not available and, ultimately, the written complaint was made, in which another0 incident allegedly involving the snatching and theft of cash and ornaments from one Manishbhai Patel and certain other car accessories, was also included.

3. After the said written complaint had been made, a First E Information Report was also recorded at the instance of the petitioner herein by the P.S.O., Sanand District, Ahmedabad (Rural), on 11th September, 2008, at 10.15 p.m. at V.S. Hospital, where the complainant had been referred for treatment. In the First Information Report it was stated by the F petitioner that when the mob of 30 to 40 persons rushed towards the informant and his brother and nephew, the Respondent No.2 and his son, Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel, were standing on the road beside their car and with the help of signs they are alleged to have directed the attackers to assault the G petitioner and his family members. According to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is yet another version of the incident contained in a letter addressed by the petitioner and others to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, wherein it was shown that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present at Village H Nighrad at the time of the alleged offence and after having PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 215 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

directed as to how the entire operation was to be carried out, A they left the place. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter applied for anticipatory bail and the same was allowed by the Additional Session$ Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmadabad (Rural),' Mirzapur, by his order dated 1 tth November, 2009. While granting the prayer of the Respondent B Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned trial court imposed various conditions to ensure that the investigation was not compromised in any way or that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cooperated with the investigation. 4. The said order allowing the prayer of the Respondent C Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail was thereafter challenged by the petitioner herein before the High Court. The High Court, upon considering the material available and after considering the various decisions of this Court laying down the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, dismissed the D petitioner's application under sections 439(2) and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 11th November, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. E

5. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the complainant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the High Court upholding the order of the trial court granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection F with the F.1.R. dated 11th September, 2008. 6. Extensive submissions were made by Mr. Yatin N. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in · support of his contentions that not only had the trial court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, but G that the High Court had also erred in confirming the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Ojha submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, in connection with the complaint filed by the petitioner, was liable to be set aside. Mr. H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A Ojha urged that when such serious charges in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 1.P.C. had been made against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their associates, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having regard to the gravity of the B offence, ought not to have allowed the prayer of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ojha firstly referred to the decision of this Court in Puran vs. Rambi/as & Anr. [(2001) 6 SCC 338], in which the grounds for cancellation C of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. fell for consideration and it was held that an order granting bail, by ignoring material and evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be perverse and contrary to principles of law and such an order would itself provide a ground for moving an application for D cancellation of bail. It was further observed that such ground for cancellation of bail would be different from the ground that the accused had misconducted himself or that some new facts called for cancellation of bail. E 8. Mr. Ojha then referred to the decision of this Court in Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 sec 175] in support of his submissions that there was no compulsion that all facts and details relating to the offence are to be included in the F.l.R. This Court observed that F the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and must provide a basis for the Police Officer to suspect the commission of such an offence. Mr. Ojha submitted that in the instant case certain information was provided in the F.l.R. which was subsequently supplemented by G addition of other charges upon further investigation into the complaint.

9. Mr. Ojha submitted that the said view was subsequently reiterated by this Court in various cases and as recently as in the case of Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public H Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 217 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 368), wherein it was reiterated that since in the F.l.R. the A accused persons have been nalTled and overt acts on their part have also been mentioned, it was not necessary that each and every detail of the incident was to be stated. It was further observed that a First Information Report is not meant to be encyclopaedic. B

10. Mr. Ojha submitted that the grant of anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was in violation of the principle~ laid down by this Court in State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Ani/ Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187), in which the factors to be considered in exercise of the discretionary power were C considered. The said case involved a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh, who was also a Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government for three years and was the son of a former Union Minister. It was held that in appropriate cases anticipatory bail should not D be granted to· persons holding high positions and/or wielding considerable influence and that the investigating agencies would be better placed to elicit more useful information and material during custodial interrogation and that the High Court had erred in ignoring the apprehension expressed by C.8.1. that E considering· the high office held by the applicant and wide influence that he could wield, the C.B.I. would be subjected to a great handicap in the interrogation process in case of grant of pre-arrest baiL Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Tu/siyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. F [(2006) 9 sec 425), wherein it was indicated that among the relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of non-bailable offences, was the gravity and the nature of the offence. Mr. Ojha urged that the decision in the said case was clearly attracted to the facts of the instant case, having regard to the G gravity of the offences complained of against the Respondent Nos.2and 3.

11. Mr. Ojha submitted that whether the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have abused the privilege of anticipatory bail or not was not the only consideration for exercise of power under Section H 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A 439(2) Cr.P.C., what was equally important was the correctness of the manner in which the respondents had been admitted to bail by the trial court. Mr. Ojha urged that having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged, both the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court had erred in granting B anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the said orders were liable to be set aside. 12. Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Ms. Hemantika Wahi supported the case of the petitioner and contended that notwithstanding the fact that the investigation had been C completed, custodial interrogation of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was still required in order to elicit further evidence in connection with the case.

13. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it was D submitted that it is only after considering the various materials available on record in respect of the purported incident the prayer of the said respondents for grant of anticipatory bail was allowed. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate, E who had commenced the submissions on behalf of the said respondents, urged that except for the statement made on behalf of the State of Gujarat that custodial interrogation of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was necessary in connection with the investigation into the complaint made by the petitioner, no other F case has been made out for cancellation of such bail. 14. The decisions cited by Mr. Ojha in support of his contentions, lay down the principles, which are normally required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail, but the same have to be applied according to the facts G and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each case. In fact, the H principles laid down by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 219 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Tripathi [(2005) 8 sec 21], broadly covers the matters to be A considered in an application for grant of bail, but even then the same may not fully cover the fact situation of each case. 15. In the instant case, on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made in respect of the 8 incident of 11th September, 2008, and having regard to the fact that allegations with regard to offences under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's application under Section 439(2) read C with Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, filed by Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel, we also make it clear that any observation made in this order shall be deemed to have been. made only for .the purposes of disposing of the D Special Leave Petition and not for any other purpose. 17. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed.

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 211 PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL A V. STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1923 of 2010) JULY 8, 2010 B [ALTAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 439(2) r!w s. 482 ·- Cancellation of anticipatory bail - c HELD: Principles normally required for granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to facts and nuances of each case - Jn the instant case, there being different versions in three different complaints and a/legations with regard to certain offences sought to be added at a later 0stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing application u/s 439(2) rlw s.482 .

Three different complaints were made to police authorities with regard to incident stated to have taken place on 11.9.2008. In one complaint, it was alleged that E at the instance of respondent nos. 2 and 3 a mob illegally entered the property of the complainant and his family members, threatened to dispossess them and to kill them if they resisted. It was, thereafter, alleged that the mob returned within half an hour and caused injuries to the F complainant and his associates. In yet another complaint, allegations of snatching, theft of cash and ornaments and certain car accessories were also included. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 applied for and were granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Session. The petition filed before the High G Court u/ss 439(2) and 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail was dismissed. Aggrieved, one of the complainants filed the petition. 211 H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD: 1. The principles normally required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail have to be applied according to the facts and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the 6 broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each case. [para 14] [218-G-H; 219-A] c

State of U.P. vs. Amarmani Tripathi 2005 Suppl. (3) SCR 454 = (2005) 8 sec 21 - relied on. Pu ran vs. Rambilas & Anr. 2001 ( 3 ) SCR 432 =(2001) D 6 SCC 338; Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh 2003 (3) SCR 485 = (2003) 6 SCC 175; Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2008 (3) SCR 1078 =(2008) 5 SCC 368; State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Anil Sharma 1997 Suppl. (3) SCR 737 = (1997) 7 SCC 187; and Anil Kumar E Tulsiyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 2006 Suppl. (1) SCR 923 =(2006) 9 sec 425 - referred to. 1.2 In the instant case, on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made F in respect of the incident of 11.9.2008, and having regard to the fact that allegations with regard to offences punishable u/ss 395, 397, 467, 468 and. 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's G application u/s 439(2) read with s.482 Cr.P.C. [para 15] [219-B-C] Case Law Reference: 2001 (3) SCR 432 referred to para 7 H PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 213 GUJARAT & ORS. 2003 (3) SCR485 referred to para 8 A 2008 (3) SCR 1078 referred to para 9 1997 Suppl. 3 SCR 737 referred to para 10 2006 Suppl. 1 SCR 923 referred to para 10 · B 2005 Suppl. 3 SCR 454 relied on para 14 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (CRIMINAL) No.1923 of 20110

From the Judgment & Order dated 18.02.201 Oof the High C Court of Gujarat at Ahemedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 12865 of 2009. Yatin N. Oza, 8. B. Naik, S. Udaya Ku:nar Sagar, Bina Madhavan, Roma I. Fidelis, Shwetank Sailakwal (for Lawyer's D Knit & Co.) for the Petitioner. Jaideep Gupta, D.N. Ray, Parthiv Shah, Lokesh K. Choudhary, Pradhuman Gohil, Sumita Ray, Hemantika Wahi, Jesal for the Respondents. E The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. In connection with an incident which is said to have occurred on 11th September, 2008 at . about 11.00 a.m. and continued even thereafter, a complaint F was made at about 5.30 p.m. to the Police Inspector, Anand Police Station, by one Patel Bipin Dahyabhai and three others .. In the said complaint it was alleged that on.the said date at 11.00 a.m. the Respondent No.2 and .his associates together with a mob of about 20 persons carrying sticks, scythes and G arms, illegally entered into Nidhwad Survey No.66, which the · complainant contended belonging to him and his family· members, and threatened to dispossess them by force from the said land and even held out threats to kill the cpri1plainant and his family members if they resisted. ·H 214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R.

A 2. From the contents of the complaint itself it is clear that immediately after the said incident the petitioner tried to lodge a complaint with the Police Inspector of Anand Police Station, but such complaint was not registered and within half an hour thereafter the mob came back and assaulted the complainant B and his associates with sticks and scythes and caused serious injuries to the petitioner herein and some of his other associates who had to be taken to the Anand Suvidha Hospital for treatment. In the written complaint it was mentioned that besides causing serious injuries to the complainant and his c group, the Respondent No.2 and his associates caused damage to the vehicles belonging to the petitioner. Since the complaint was not registered, the petitioner and his associates were said to have gone to the Office of the D.S.P., where they were informed that the said Officer was not available and, ultimately, the written complaint was made, in which another0 incident allegedly involving the snatching and theft of cash and ornaments from one Manishbhai Patel and certain other car accessories, was also included.

3. After the said written complaint had been made, a First E Information Report was also recorded at the instance of the petitioner herein by the P.S.O., Sanand District, Ahmedabad (Rural), on 11th September, 2008, at 10.15 p.m. at V.S. Hospital, where the complainant had been referred for treatment. In the First Information Report it was stated by the F petitioner that when the mob of 30 to 40 persons rushed towards the informant and his brother and nephew, the Respondent No.2 and his son, Lalitbhai Babubhai Patel, were standing on the road beside their car and with the help of signs they are alleged to have directed the attackers to assault the G petitioner and his family members. According to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, there is yet another version of the incident contained in a letter addressed by the petitioner and others to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, wherein it was shown that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were present at Village H Nighrad at the time of the alleged offence and after having PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 215 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

directed as to how the entire operation was to be carried out, A they left the place. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 thereafter applied for anticipatory bail and the same was allowed by the Additional Session$ Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Ahmadabad (Rural),' Mirzapur, by his order dated 1 tth November, 2009. While granting the prayer of the Respondent B Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail, the learned trial court imposed various conditions to ensure that the investigation was not compromised in any way or that the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 cooperated with the investigation. 4. The said order allowing the prayer of the Respondent C Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail was thereafter challenged by the petitioner herein before the High Court. The High Court, upon considering the material available and after considering the various decisions of this Court laying down the parameters for grant of anticipatory bail, dismissed the D petitioner's application under sections 439(2) and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for setting aside the order dated 11th November, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein. E

5. This Special Leave Petition has been filed by the complainant being dissatisfied with the aforesaid order of the High Court upholding the order of the trial court granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 in connection F with the F.1.R. dated 11th September, 2008. 6. Extensive submissions were made by Mr. Yatin N. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, in · support of his contentions that not only had the trial court erred in granting anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, but G that the High Court had also erred in confirming the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Mr. Ojha submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, in connection with the complaint filed by the petitioner, was liable to be set aside. Mr. H 216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 8 S.C.R. A Ojha urged that when such serious charges in respect of offences alleged to have been committed under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 1.P.C. had been made against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their associates, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, having regard to the gravity of the B offence, ought not to have allowed the prayer of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, Mr. Ojha firstly referred to the decision of this Court in Puran vs. Rambi/as & Anr. [(2001) 6 SCC 338], in which the grounds for cancellation C of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. fell for consideration and it was held that an order granting bail, by ignoring material and evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be perverse and contrary to principles of law and such an order would itself provide a ground for moving an application for D cancellation of bail. It was further observed that such ground for cancellation of bail would be different from the ground that the accused had misconducted himself or that some new facts called for cancellation of bail. E 8. Mr. Ojha then referred to the decision of this Court in Superintendent of Police, CBI & Ors. vs. Tapan Kumar Singh [(2003) 6 sec 175] in support of his submissions that there was no compulsion that all facts and details relating to the offence are to be included in the F.l.R. This Court observed that F the information given must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and must provide a basis for the Police Officer to suspect the commission of such an offence. Mr. Ojha submitted that in the instant case certain information was provided in the F.l.R. which was subsequently supplemented by G addition of other charges upon further investigation into the complaint.

9. Mr. Ojha submitted that the said view was subsequently reiterated by this Court in various cases and as recently as in the case of Animireddy Venkata Ramana & Ors. vs. Public H Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [(2008) 5 SCC PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 217 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 368), wherein it was reiterated that since in the F.l.R. the A accused persons have been nalTled and overt acts on their part have also been mentioned, it was not necessary that each and every detail of the incident was to be stated. It was further observed that a First Information Report is not meant to be encyclopaedic. B

10. Mr. Ojha submitted that the grant of anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was in violation of the principle~ laid down by this Court in State rep. by the C.B.I. vs. Ani/ Sharma [(1997) 7 SCC 187), in which the factors to be considered in exercise of the discretionary power were C considered. The said case involved a member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Himachal Pradesh, who was also a Minister of the Himachal Pradesh State Government for three years and was the son of a former Union Minister. It was held that in appropriate cases anticipatory bail should not D be granted to· persons holding high positions and/or wielding considerable influence and that the investigating agencies would be better placed to elicit more useful information and material during custodial interrogation and that the High Court had erred in ignoring the apprehension expressed by C.8.1. that E considering· the high office held by the applicant and wide influence that he could wield, the C.B.I. would be subjected to a great handicap in the interrogation process in case of grant of pre-arrest baiL Reference was also made to the decision of this Court in Anil Kumar Tu/siyani vs. State of U.P. & Anr. F [(2006) 9 sec 425), wherein it was indicated that among the relevant considerations for grant of bail in respect of non-bailable offences, was the gravity and the nature of the offence. Mr. Ojha urged that the decision in the said case was clearly attracted to the facts of the instant case, having regard to the G gravity of the offences complained of against the Respondent Nos.2and 3.

11. Mr. Ojha submitted that whether the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have abused the privilege of anticipatory bail or not was not the only consideration for exercise of power under Section H 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 8 S.C.R. A 439(2) Cr.P.C., what was equally important was the correctness of the manner in which the respondents had been admitted to bail by the trial court. Mr. Ojha urged that having regard to the gravity of the offences alleged, both the Additional Sessions Judge as well as the High Court had erred in granting B anticipatory bail to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the said orders were liable to be set aside. 12. Appearing for the State of Gujarat, Ms. Hemantika Wahi supported the case of the petitioner and contended that notwithstanding the fact that the investigation had been C completed, custodial interrogation of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was still required in order to elicit further evidence in connection with the case.

13. On behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 it was D submitted that it is only after considering the various materials available on record in respect of the purported incident the prayer of the said respondents for grant of anticipatory bail was allowed. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Senior Advocate, E who had commenced the submissions on behalf of the said respondents, urged that except for the statement made on behalf of the State of Gujarat that custodial interrogation of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 was necessary in connection with the investigation into the complaint made by the petitioner, no other F case has been made out for cancellation of such bail. 14. The decisions cited by Mr. Ojha in support of his contentions, lay down the principles, which are normally required to be followed while granting regular bail or anticipatory bail, but the same have to be applied according to the facts G and circumstances of each case. Except for indicating the broad outlines for grant of bail and/or anticipatory bail, no strait-jacket formula can be prescribed for universal application, as each case for grant of bail has to be considered on its own merits and in the facts and nuances of each case. In fact, the H principles laid down by this Court in State of U.P. vs. Amarmani PRAVINBHAI KASHIRAMBHAI PATEL v. STATE OF 219 GUJARAT & ORS. [ALTAMAS KABIR, J.]

Tripathi [(2005) 8 sec 21], broadly covers the matters to be A considered in an application for grant of bail, but even then the same may not fully cover the fact situation of each case. 15. In the instant case, on account of the different versions noticed in the three different complaints made in respect of the 8 incident of 11th September, 2008, and having regard to the fact that allegations with regard to offences under Sections 395, 397, 467, 468 and 471 l.P.C. were sought to be added at a later stage of investigation, no case has been made out for allowing the petitioner's application under Section 439(2) read C with Section 482 Cr.P.C. 16. Accordingly, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, filed by Pravinbhai Kashirambhai Patel, we also make it clear that any observation made in this order shall be deemed to have been. made only for .the purposes of disposing of the D Special Leave Petition and not for any other purpose. 17. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed accordingly. R.P. Special Leave Petition dismissed.