DHANANJAYA Y.CHANDRACHUD,J. - (1.) This judgment has been divided into sections to facilitate analysis. They are: A. The appeal B. The parties, the FIR and 'A' Summary C. Previous proceedings against the appellant D. Re-opening of investigation and arrest of the appellant E. Submissions of Counsel F. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5599 of 2020) G. Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 2020 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5600 of 2020) H. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC I. Prima Facie evaluation of the FIR and the grant of bail J. Human liberty and the role of courts K. Conclusion A. The appeal 1. While invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC"), the appellant sought three substantive reliefs: (i) A writ of Habeas Corpus, claiming that he had been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Station House Officer ("SHO") at Alibaug Police Station in the district of Raigad in Maharashtra in relation to a First Information Report[1] ("FIR") registered on 5 May 2018 under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") in spite of an earlier closure report which was accepted by the Magistrate; (ii) The quashing of the above-mentioned FIR; and (iii) The quashing of the arrest memo on the basis of which the appellant had been arrested. [1] CR No. 0059 of 2018 These three reliefs[2] are reflected in prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the petition before the High Court. [2] "(a) Issue a writ of habeas corpus and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of like nature, directing the Respondents to produce the Petitioner who has been illegally arrested and wrongfully detained by the Respondent No. 2 in relation to FIR, being C.R. No. 0059 of 2018 dated 5 May 2018, registered at Alibaug Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, despite a closure report being filed; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of like nature, quashing the FIR, being C.R. No. 0059 of 2018, dated 5 May 2018, registered at Alibaug Police Station, Raigad, under Sections 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; (c) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other similar writ, order and direction of like nature, quashing and/or setting-aside the arrest memo, if any, on the basis of which the Respondents have wrongfully and illegally arrested the Petitioner;"
(2.) Pending the disposal of the petition, by an interim application in the proceedings[3], the appellant sought his release from custody and a stay of all further proceedings including the investigation in pursuance of the FIR. [3] "(a) Pending final hearing and disposal of the captioned writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant bail to the Petitioner in FIR No. 59 of 2018 and direct the Respondents and/or each of them to immediately release the Petitioner from illegal detention and wrongful custody and/or arrest by the Respondents in view of detailed submissions made herein above, to meet the ends of justice, (b) Pending the final hearing and disposal of the captioned writ petition, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay all further proceedings, including the investigation in FIR No. 59 of 2018, with respect to the Petitioner."
(3.) A Division Bench of the High Court, by its order dated 9 November 2020, noted that prayer (a) by which a writ of habeas corpus was sought was not pressed. The High Court posted the hearing of the petition for considering the prayer for quashing of the FIR on 10 December 2020. It declined to accede to the prayer for the grant of bail, placing reliance on a decision of this Court in State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 ('Habib Jeelani"). The High Court was of the view that the prayers for interim relief proceeded on the premise that the appellant had been illegally detained and since he was in judicial custody, it would not entertain the request for bail or for stay of the investigation in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction. The High Court held that since the appellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him to avail of the remedy of bail under Section 439 of the CrPC. The High Court declined prima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that the allegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 306 of the I PC. That is how the case has come to this Court. The appellant is aggrieved by the denial of his interim prayer for the grant of bail. B. The parties, the FIR and 'A' Summary ;