High Courts Should Refrain From Giving Inappropriate Oral Directives To Avoid Arrest

CASE PROCEEDINGS

• The accused had moved to the Gujarat High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requesting the quashing of the FIR registered against him under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was apprehended while the petition was pending.
• The Supreme Court highlighted in its order that the language of the High Court's judgment did not produce any direction barring the accused's arrest.
• The court stated that if the High Court deemed it appropriate to offer interim protection from arrest, a separate judicial order was required.
• The court stated that, unlike civil cases, which involve conflicts between two private parties, criminal proceedings involve the State and society's crucial interest in the conviction of a crime, in addition to the accused and the complainant.
• The court also referred to Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra observed that the grounds stated by the Court when granting an interim order should reflect an application of mind to relevant facts and circumstances of the case.

CASE RELEVANCE

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the process of issuing an "oral directive" not to arrest an accused person is unreasonable.
• The court pointed out that the wording of a written order is what is binding and enforceable, and that oral instructions can raise significant problems.
• When the case was reopened after the arrest, the judge observed that the Court had issued an oral order restraining the arrest, and thus the judge ordered that the accused be freed immediately.