E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments ON Anticipatory Bail “ Granted”

E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail E Book of

SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments ON

Anticipatory Bail “ Granted” Covering Full Text of Two Very Important Judgments of Supreme Court 1. SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 2. GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB

Compiled & Edited By : - Ashutosh K Mishra For Law Tech India

Published By : -- Law Tech India Email : [email protected] www.lawtechindia.in www.facebook.com/lawtech.india

facebook.com/lawtech.india

Buy Complete Suprem Court Judgments In pen Drive since 1950 @ 2500/- only

E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail [2010(12) SCALE 691 = (2011) 1 SCC 694 = AIR 2011 SC 312 = (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) 514 = 2011 AIR(SCW) 3813 = 2011 CRI. L. J. 3905] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (DALVEER BHANDARI & K.S. PANICKER RADHAKRISHNAN., JJ.) SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2010(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009)-Decided on 2-12-2010 (From: Bombay) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Personal liberty - Relevance and importance of personal liberty discussed. (Paras 41 to 57) Constitution of India, Article 21 - Right to life and personal liberty under the Indian constitution discussed. (Paras 58 to 75) Life and persona liberty - Position in United Kingdom, West Germany, Japan, Canada, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Nepal discussed. (Paras 76 to 84) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 - Constitution of India, Article 21 - Anticipatory bail - Personal liberty - Scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C. discussed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 438 - Constitution of India, Article 21 - Anticipatory bail - Personal liberty -Scope and ambit of anticipatory bail - Factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail enumerated. (Paras 118 to 122) Referred: Pokar Ram vs State of Rajasthan and Others [(1985) 2 SCC 597 = 1985(1) SCALE 918]; Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra [(1996) 1 SCC 667 = 1995(7) SCALE 272]; K. L. Verma vs State and Another [(1998) 9 SCC 348]; Adri Dharan Das vs State of West Bengal [(2005) 4 SCC 303 = 2005(2) SCALE 212]; Sunita Devi vs State of Bihar and Another [(2005) 1 SCC 608 = 2004(10) SCALE 227]; N. Meera Rani vs Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. [(1989) 4 SCC 418 = 1989(2) SCALE 363]; Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company and Others vs Dy. Commercial Tax Officer and Another [(1996) 1 SCC 468 = 1995(7) SCALE 239]; Union of India and Others vs K. S. Subramanian [(1976) 3 SCC 677]; State of U.P. vs Ram Chandra Trivedi [(1976) 4 SCC 52]; Palanikumar and Another vs State [2007 (4) CTC 1]; A. K. Gopalan vs The State of Madras [AIR 1950 SC 27]; Kharak Singh vs State of U.P. and Others [AIR 1963 SC 1295]; Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India and Another [(1978) 1 SCC 248]; State of A.P. vs Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 712 = 2000(4) SCALE 471]; Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab and Others [(1994) 3 SCC 569 = 1994 Supp.1 SCALE 1]; Francis Coralie Mullin vs Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others [(1981) 1 SCC 608 = 1981(1) SCALE 9]; P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik vs Union of India and Another [(1994) 3 SCC 394 = 1994(2) SCALE 674]; Khedat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath vs State of M.P. and Others [(1994) 6 SCC 260 = 1994(4) SCALE 40]; Central Inland Water Transport Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr.



(Paras 93 to

E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail [(1986) 3 SCC 156 = 1986(1) SCALE 799]; Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration [(1980) 3 SCC 526]; Bugdaycay vs Secretary of State for the Home Department [(1987) 1 All ER 940]; R on the application of Pretty vs Director of Public Prosecutions [(2002) 1 All ER 1]; R. vs Curr [(1972) SCR 889]; Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 260 = 1994(2) SCALE 662]; Naresh Kumar Yadav vs Ravindra Kumar [(2008) 1 SCC 632 = 2007(12) SCALE 531]; Huddersfield Police Authority vs Watson [(1947) 2 All ER 193]; Government of A.P. and Anr. vs B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by LRs. and Others [(2000) 4 SCC 262 = 2000(3) SCALE 277]; Union of India vs Raghubir Singh [(1989) 2 SCC 754 = 1989(1) SCALE 1337]; Thota Sesharathamma and Another vs Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by LRs. and Others [(1991) 4 SCC 312 = 1991(2) SCALE 434]; Mst. Karmi vs Amru [(1972) 4 SCC 86]; R. Thiruvirkolam vs Presiding Officer and Another [(1997) 1 SCC 9 = 1996(8) SCALE 297]; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593]; P.H. Kalyani vs Air France [(1964) 2 SCR 104]; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs Mumbai Shramik Sangra and others [(2001) 4 SCC 448 = 2001(3) SCALE 531]; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community vs State of Maharashtra [(2005) 2 SCC 673 = 2004(10) SCALE 501]; Official Liquidator vs Dayanand and Others [(2008) 10 SCC 1 = 2008(13) SCALE 558]; State of Karnataka and Others vs Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1 = 2006(4) SCALE 197]; Subhash Chandra and Another vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others [(2009) 15 SCC 458 = 2009(11) SCALE 278]. Advocate(s): Shanti Bhushan and Mahesh Jethmalani, Senior Advocates (Naveen Chomal, Sudhir Halli, A. Raghunath, Pravin Satale, Pranav Badheka, Priyal Sardha, Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Arun Pednekar, Sanjay Kharde, Shankar Chillarge, Ms Asha Gopalan Nair, Rajeev K. Dubey and Kamlendra Mishra, Advocates) for the appearing parties. JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.-Leave granted. This appeal involves issues of great public importance pertaining to the importance of individual's personal liberty and the society's interest. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty. 2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under: The appellant, who belongs to the Indian National Congress party (for short `Congress party') is the alleged accused in this case. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the First Information Report (for short `FIR'), is that Sidramappa Patil was contesting election of the State assembly on behalf of the Bhartiya Janata Party (for short `BJP'). In the FIR, it is incorporated that Baburao Patil, Prakash Patil, Mahadev Patil, Mallikarjun Patil, Apparao Patil, Yeshwant Patil were supporters of the Congress and so also the supporters of the appellant Siddharam Mhetre and opposed to the BJP candidate. 3. On 26.9.2009, around 6.00 p.m. in the evening, Sidramappa Patil of BJP came to the village to meet his party workers. At that juncture, Shrimant Ishwarappa Kore, Bhimashankar Ishwarappa Kore, Kallapa Gaddi, Sangappa Gaddi, Gafur Patil, Layappa Gaddi, Mahadev Kore, Suresh Gaddi, Suresh



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail Zhalaki, Ankalgi, Sarpanch of village Shivmurti Vijapure met Sidramappa Patil and thereafter went to worship and pray at Layavva Devi's temple. After worshipping the Goddess when they came out to the assembly hall of the temple, these aforementioned political opponents namely, Baburao Patil, Prakash Patil, Gurunath Patil, Shrishail Patil, Mahadev Patil, Mallikarjun Patil, Annarao @ Pintu Patil, Hanumant Patil, Tammarao Bassappa Patil, Apparao Patil, Mallaya Swami, Sidhappa Patil, Shankar Mhetre, Usman Sheikh, Jagdev Patil, Omsiddha Pujari, Panchappa Patil, Mahesh Hattargi, Siddhappa Birajdar, Santosh Arwat, Sangayya Swami, Anandappa Birajdar, Sharanappa Birajdar, Shailesh Chougule, Ravi Patil, Amrutling Koshti, Ramesh Patil and Chandrakant Hattargi suddenly came rushing in their direction and loudly shouted, "why have you come to our village? Have you come here to oppose our Mhetre Saheb? They asked them to go away and shouted Mhetre Saheb Ki Jai." 4. Baburao Patil and Prakash Patil from the aforementioned group fired from their pistols in order to kill Sidramappa Patil and the other workers of the BJP. Bhima Shankar Kore was hit by the bullet on his head and died on the spot. Sangappa Gaddi, Shivmurti Vjapure, Jagdev Patil, Layappa Patil, Tammaro Patil were also assaulted. It is further mentioned in the FIR that about eight days ago, the appellant Siddharam Mhetre and his brother Shankar Mhetre had gone to the village and talked to the abovementioned party workers and told them that, "if anybody says anything to you, then you tell me. I will send my men within five minutes. You beat anybody. Do whatever." 5. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with his brother instigated their party workers which led to killing of Bhima Shanker Kora. It may be relevant to mention that the alleged incident took place after eight days of the alleged incident of instigation. 6. The law relating to bail is contained in sections 436 to 450 of chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 436 deals with situation, in what kind of cases bail should be granted. Section 436 deals with the situation when bail may be granted in case of a bailable offence. Section 439 deals with the special powers of the High Court or the Court of Sessions regarding grant of bail. Under sections 437 and 439 bail is granted when the accused or the detenu is in jail or under detention. 7. The provision of anticipatory bail was introduced for the first time in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973. 8. Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under: "438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation; (ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and (iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail: Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application. (1-A) Where the Court grants an interim order under sub-section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail (1-B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court, if on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may thinks fit, including (i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly,- make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1)." Why was the provision of anticipatory bail introduced? - Historical perspective 9. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not contain any specific provision of anticipatory bail. Under the old Code, there was a sharp difference of opinion amongst the various High Courts on the question as to whether the courts had an inherent power to pass an order of bail in anticipation of arrest, the preponderance of view being that it did not have such power. 10. The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report dated September 24, 1969 pointed out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure enabling the High Court and the Court of Sessions to grant "anticipatory bail". It observed in para 39.9 of its report (Volume I) and the same is set out as under: "The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as "anticipatory bail") was carefully considered by us. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail." The Law commission recommended acceptance of the suggestion. 11. The Law Commission in para 31 of its 48th Report (July, 1972) made the following comments on the aforesaid clause: "The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This is substantially in accordance with the recommendation made by the previous Commission. We agree that this would be a useful addition, though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised. We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners, the final order should be made only after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The initial order should only be an interim one. Further, the relevant section should make it clear that the direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded, and if the court is satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interests of justice.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail It will also be convenient to provide that notice of the interim order as well as of the final orders will be given to the Superintendent of Police forthwith." 12. Police custody is an inevitable concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences. The concept of anticipatory bail is that a person who apprehends his arrest in a non-bailable case can apply for grant of bail to the Court of Sessions or to the High Court before the arrest. Scope and ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 13. It is apparent from the Statement of Objects and Reasons for introducing section 438 in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that it was felt imperative to evolve a device by which an alleged accused is not compelled to face ignominy and disgrace at the instance of influential people who try to implicate their rivals in false cases. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not contain any specific provision corresponding to the present section 438 Cr.P.C. The only two clear provisions of law by which bail could be granted were sections 437 and 439 of the Code. Section 438 was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the first time. 14. It is clear from the Statement of Objects and Reasons that the purpose of incorporating Section 438 in the Cr.P.C. was to recognize the importance of personal liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country. When we carefully analyze this section, the wisdom of the legislature becomes quite evident and clear that the legislature was keen to ensure respect for the personal liberty and also pressed in service the age-old principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court. 15. The High Court in the impugned judgment has declined to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant and aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court by filing this appeal. 16. Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the High Court has gravely erred in declining the anticipatory bail to the appellant. He submitted that section 438 Cr.P.C. was incorporated because sometime influential people try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. He pointed out that in recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. 17. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the appellant has been implicated in a false case and apart from that he has already joined the investigation and he is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse the liberty while on bail, therefore, there was no justification to decline anticipatory bail to the appellant. Mr. Bhushan also submitted that the FIR in this case refers to an incident which had taken place on the instigation of the appellant about eight days ago. According to him, proper analysis of the averments in the FIR leads to irresistible conclusion that the entire prosecution story seems to be a cock and bull story and no reliance can be placed on such a concocted version. 18. Mr. Bhushan contended that the personal liberty is the most important fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. He also submitted that it is the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every individual is presumed to be innocent till he or she is found guilty. He further submitted that on proper analysis of section 438 Cr.P.C. the legislative wisdom becomes quite evident that the legislature wanted to preserve and protect personal liberty and give impetus to the age-old principle that every person is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the court. 19. Mr. Bhushan also submitted that an order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the police their power and right to fully investigate into charges made against the appellant. He further submitted that when the case is under investigation, the usual anxiety of the investigating agency is to ensure that the alleged accused should fully cooperate with them and should be available as and when they require him. In the instant case, when the appellant has already joined the investigation and is fully cooperating with the investigating agency then it is difficult to comprehend why the respondent is insistent for custodial interrogation of the appellant? According to the appellant, in the instant case, the investigating agency should not have a slightest doubt that the appellant would not be available to the investigating agency for further investigation particularly when he has already joined investigation and is fully cooperating with the investigating agency. 20. Mr. Bhushan also submitted that according to the General Clauses Act, 1897 the court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The grant of bail is an interim order. The court can always review its decision according to the subsequent facts, circumstances and new material. Mr. Bhushan also submitted that the exercise of grant, refusal and cancellation of bail can be undertaken



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail by the court either at the instance of the accused or a public prosecutor or a complainant on finding fresh material and new circumstances at any point of time. Even the appellant's reluctance in not fully cooperating with the investigation could be a ground for cancellation of bail. 21. Mr. Bhushan submitted that a plain reading of the section 438 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that the legislature has not placed any fetters on the court. In other words, the legislature has not circumscribed court's discretion in any manner while granting anticipatory bail, therefore, the court should not limit the order only for a specified period till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter compel the accused to surrender and ask for regular bail under section 439 Cr.P.C., meaning thereby the legislature has not envisaged that the life of the anticipatory bail would only last till the chargesheet is filed. Mr. Bhushan submitted that when no embargo has been placed by the legislature then this court in some of its orders was not justified in placing this embargo. 22. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the discretion which has been granted by the legislature cannot and should not be curtailed by interpreting the provisions contrary to the legislative intention. The courts' discretion in grant or refusal of the anticipatory bail cannot be diluted by interpreting the provisions against the legislative intention. He submitted that the life is never static and every situation has to be assessed and evaluated in the context of emerging concerns as and when it arises. It is difficult to visualize or anticipate all kinds of problems and situations which may arise in future. Law has been settled by an authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court 23. The Constitution Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 had an occasion to comprehensively deal with the scope and ambit of the concept of anticipatory bail. Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary provision where the accused who apprehends his/her arrest on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence can be granted bail in anticipation of arrest. The Constitution Bench's relevant observations are set out as under: "........A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hall mark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail". 24. Mr. Bhushan referred to a Constitution Bench judgment in Sibbia's case (supra) to strengthen his argument that no such embargo has been placed by the said judgment of the Constitution Bench. He placed heavy reliance on para 15 of Sibbia's case (supra), which reads as under: "15. Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. And it will be strange if, by employing judicial artifices and techniques, we cut down the discretion so wisely conferred upon the courts, by devising a formula which will confine the power to grant anticipatory bail within a straitjacket. While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, as the High Court has done, it is apt to be overlooked that even judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situations. Life is never static and every situation has to be assessed in the context of emerging concerns as and when it arises. Therefore, even if we were to frame a `Code for the grant of anticipatory bail', which really is the business of the legislature, it can at best furnish broad guide-lines and cannot compel blind adherence. In which case to grant bail and in which to refuse it is, in the very nature of things, a matter of discretion. But apart from the fact that the question is inherently of a kind which calls for the use of discretion from case to case, the legislature has, in terms express, relegated the decision of that question to the discretion of the court, by providing that it may grant bail "if it thinks fit". The concern of the courts generally is to preserve their discretion without meaning to abuse it. It will be strange if we exhibit concern to stultify the discretion conferred upon the courts by law." 25. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) also mentioned that: "we see no valid reason for rewriting Section 438 with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it. Accordingly, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal". 26. Mr. Bhushan submitted that the court's orders in some cases that anticipatory bail is granted till the charge-sheet is filed and thereafter the accused has to surrender and seek bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C. is neither envisaged by the provisions of the Act nor is in consonance with the law declared by a Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) nor it is in conformity with the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that accused is considered to be innocent till he is found guilty nor in consonance with the provisions of the Constitution where individual's liberty in a democratic society is considered sacrosanct. 27. Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, submitted that looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court was justified in declining the anticipatory bail to the appellant. He submitted that the anticipatory bail ought to be granted in rarest of rare cases where the nature of offence is not very serious. He placed reliance on the case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Others (1985) 2 SCC 597 and submitted that in murder cases custodial interrogation is of paramount importance particularly when no eye witness account is available. 28. Mr. Jethmalani fairly submitted that the practice of passing orders of anticipatory bail operative for a few days and directing the accused to surrender before the Magistrate and apply for regular bail are contrary to the law laid down in Sibbia's case (supra). The decisions of this Court in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667, K. L. Verma v. State and Another (1998) 9 SCC 348, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal (2005) 4 SCC 303 and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 1 SCC 608 are in conflict with the above decision of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). He submitted that all these orders which are contrary to the clear legislative intention of law laid down in Sibbia's case (supra) are per incuriam. He also submitted that in case the conflict between the two views is irreconcilable, the court is bound to follow the judgment of the Constitution Bench over the subsequent decisions of Benches of lesser strength. 29. He placed reliance on N. Meera Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Another (1989) 4 SCC 418 wherein it was perceived that there was a clear conflict between the judgment of the Constitution Bench and subsequent decisions of Benches of lesser strength. The Court ruled that the dictum in the judgment of the Constitution Bench has to be preferred over the subsequent decisions of the Bench of lesser strength. The Court observed thus: ".......All subsequent decisions which are cited have to be read in the light of the Constitution Bench decision since they are decisions by Benches comprising of lesser number of judges. It is obvious that none of these subsequent decisions could have intended taking a view contrary to that of the Constitution bench in Rameshwar Shaw's case (1964) 4 SCR 921" 30. He placed reliance on another judgment of this Court in Vijayalaxmi Cashew Company and Others v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer and Another (1996) 1 SCC 468. This Court held as under: "........It is not possible to uphold the contention that perception of the Supreme Court, as will appear from the later judgments, has changed in this regard. A judgment of a Five Judge Bench, which has not been doubted by any later judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be treated as overruled by implication." He also placed reliance on Union of India and Others v. K. S. Subramanian (1976) 3 SCC 677 and State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi (1976) 4 SCC 52 and submitted that in case of conflict, the High Court has to prefer the decision of a larger Bench to that of a smaller Bench. 31. Mr. Jethmalani submitted that not only the decision in Sibbia's case (supra) must be followed on account of the larger strength of the Bench that delivered it but the subsequent decisions must be held to be per incuriam and hence not binding since they have not taken into account the ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench. He further submitted that as per the doctrine of `per incuriam', any judgment which has been passed in ignorance of or without considering a statutory provision or a binding precedent is not good law and the same ought to be ignored. A perusal of the judgments in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, K. L. Verma v. State and Another, Adri



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (supra) indicates that none of these judgments have considered para 42 of Sibbia's case (supra) in proper perspective. 32. According to Mr. Jethmalani, all subsequent decisions which have been cited above have to be read in the light of the Constitution Bench's decision in Sibbia's case (supra) since they are decisions of Benches comprised of lesser number of judges. According to him, none of these subsequent decisions could be intended taking a view contrary to that of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). 33. Thus, the law laid down in para 42 by the Constitution Bench that the normal rule is not to limit operation of the order of anticipatory bail, was not taken into account by the courts passing the subsequent judgments. The observations made by the courts in the subsequent judgments have been made in ignorance of and without considering the law laid down in para 42 which was binding on them. In these circumstances, the observations made in the subsequent judgments to the effect that anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time, must be construed to be per incuriam and the decision of the Constitution Bench preferred. 34. He further submitted that the said issue came up for consideration before the Madras High Court reported in Palanikumar and Another v. State 2007 (4) CTC 1 wherein after discussing all the judgments of this court on the issue, the court held that the subsequent judgments were in conflict with the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) and in accordance with the law of precedents, the judgment of the Constitution Bench is biding on all courts and the ratio of that judgment has to be applicable for all judgments decided by the Benches of same or smaller combinations. In the said judgment of Sibbia's case (supra) it was directed that the anticipatory bail should not be limited in period of time. 35. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length and perused the written submissions filed by the learned counsel for the parties. Relevance and importance of personal liberty 36. All human beings are born with some unalienable rights like life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The importance of these natural rights can be found in the fact that these are fundamental for their proper existence and no other right can be enjoyed without the presence of right to life and liberty. Life bereft of liberty would be without honour and dignity and it would lose all significance and meaning and the life itself would not be worth living. That is why "liberty" is called the very quintessence of a civilized existence. 37. Origin of "liberty"' can be traced in the ancient Greek civilization. The Greeks distinguished between the liberty of the group and the liberty of the individual. In 431 B.C., an Athenian statesman described that the concept of liberty was the outcome of two notions, firstly, protection of group from attack and secondly, the ambition of the group to realize itself as fully as possible through the selfrealization of the individual by way of human reason. Greeks assigned the duty of protecting their liberties to the State. According to Aristotle, as the state was a means to fulfil certain fundamental needs of human nature and was a means for development of individuals' personality in association of fellow citizens so it was natural and necessary to man. Plato found his "republic" as the best source for the achievement of the self-realization of the people. 38. Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary defines "liberty" as "Freedom to do as one pleases, the unrestrained employment of natural rights, power of free chance, privileges, exemption, relaxation of restraint, the bounds within which certain privileges are enjoyed, freedom of speech and action beyond ordinary civility". 39. It is very difficult to define the "liberty". It has many facets and meanings. The philosophers and moralists have praised freedom and liberty but this term is difficult to define because it does not resist any interpretation. The term "liberty" may be defined as the affirmation by an individual or group of his or its own essence. It needs the presence of three factors, firstly, harmonious balance of personality, secondly, the absence of restraint upon the exercise of that affirmation and thirdly, organization of opportunities for the exercise of a continuous initiative. 40. "Liberty" may be defined as a power of acting according to the determinations of the will. According to Harold Laski, liberty was essentially an absence of restraints and John Stuard Mill viewed that "all restraint", qua restraint is an evil". In the words of Jonathon Edwards, the meaning of "liberty" and freedom is:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail "Power, opportunity or advantage that any one has to do as he pleases, or, in other words, his being free from hindrance or impediment in the way of doing, or conducting in any respect, as he wills." 41. It can be found that "liberty" generally means the prevention of restraints and providing such opportunities, the denial of which would result in frustration and ultimately disorder. Restraints on man's liberty are laid down by power used through absolute discretion, which when used in this manner brings an end to "liberty" and freedom is lost. At the same time "liberty" without restraints would mean liberty won by one and lost by another. So "liberty" means doing of anything one desires but subject to the desire of others. 42. As John E.E.D. in his monograph Action on "Essays on Freedom and Power" wrote that Liberty is one of the most essential requirements of the modern man. It is said to be the delicate fruit of a mature civilization. 43. A distinguished former Attorney General for India, M.C. Setalvad in his treatise "War and Civil Liberties" observed that the French Convention stipulates common happiness as the end of the society, whereas Bentham postulates the greatest happiness of the greatest number as the end of law. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution averts to freedom and it enumerates certain rights regarding individual freedom. These rights are vital and most important freedoms which lie at the very root of liberty. He further observed that the concept of civil liberty is essentially rooted in the philosophy of individualism. According to this doctrine, the highest development of the individual and the enrichment of his personality are the true function and end of the state. It is only when the individual has reached the highest state of perfection and evolved what is best in him that society and the state can reach their goal of perfection. In brief, according to this doctrine, the state exists mainly, if not solely, for the purpose of affording the individual freedom and assistance for the attainment of his growth and perfection. The state exists for the benefit of the individual. 44. Mr. Setalvad in the same treatise further observed that it is also true that the individual cannot attain the highest in him unless he is in possession of certain essential liberties which leave him free as it were to breathe and expand. According to Justice Holmes, these liberties are the indispensable conditions of a free society. The justification of the existence of such a state can only be the advancement of the interests of the individuals who compose it and who are its members. Therefore, in a properly constituted democratic state, there cannot be a conflict between the interests of the citizens and those of the state. The harmony, if not the identity, of the interests of the state and the individual, is the fundamental basis of the modern Democratic National State. And, yet the existence of the state and all government and even all law must mean in a measure the curtailment of the liberty of the individual. But such a surrender and curtailment of his liberty is essential in the interests of the citizens of the State. The individuals composing the state must, in their own interests and in order that they may be assured the existence of conditions in which they can, with a reasonable amount of freedom, carry on their other activities, endow those in authority over them to make laws and regulations and adopt measures which impose certain restrictions on the activities of the individuals. 45. Harold J. Laski in his monumental work in "Liberty in the Modern State" observed that liberty always demands a limitation on political authority. Power as such when uncontrolled is always the natural enemy of freedom. 46. Roscoe Pound, an eminent and one of the greatest American Law Professors aptly observed in his book "The Development of Constitutional Guarantee of Liberty" that: “whatever, `liberty' may mean today, the liberty is guaranteed by our bills of rights, "is a reservation to the individual of certain fundamental reasonable expectations involved in life in civilized society and a freedom from arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of the power and authority of those who are designated or chosen in a politically organized society to adjust that society to individuals." 47. Blackstone in "Commentaries on the Laws of England", Vol.I, p.134 aptly observed that: "Personal liberty consists in the power of locomotion, of changing situation or moving one's person to whatsoever place one's own inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law". 48. According to Dicey, a distinguished English author of the Constitutional Law in his treatise on Constitutional Law observed that,



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail "Personal liberty, as understood in England, means in substance a person's right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest, or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification." [Dicey on Constitutional Law, 9th Edn., pp.207-08]. According to him, it is the negative right of not being subjected to any form of physical restraint or coercion that constitutes the essence of personal liberty and not mere freedom to move to any part of the Indian territory. In ordinary language personal liberty means liberty relating to or concerning the person or body of the individual, and personal liberty in this sense is the antithesis of physical restraint or coercion. 49. An eminent English Judge Lord Alfred Denning observed: "By personal freedom I mean freedom of every law abiding citizen to think what he will, to say what he will, and to go where he will on his lawful occasion without hindrance from any person.... It must be matched, of course, with social security by which I mean the peace and good order of the community in which we live." 50. Eminent former Judge of this Court, Justice H.R. Khanna in a speech as published in 2 IJIL, Vol.18 (1978), p.133 observed that "liberty postulates the creation of a climate wherein there is no suppression of the human spirits, wherein, there is no denial of the opportunity for the full growth of human personality, wherein head is held high and there is no servility of the human mind or enslavement of the human body". Right to life and personal liberty under the Constitution 51. We deem it appropriate to deal with the concept of personal liberty under the Indian and other Constitutions. 52. The Fundamental Rights represent the basic values enriched by the people of this country. The aim behind having elementary right of the individual such as the Right to Life and Liberty is not fulfilled as desired by the framers of the Constitution. It is to preserve and protect certain basic human rights against interference by the state. The inclusion of a Chapter in Constitution is in accordance with the trends of modern democratic thought. The object is to ensure the inviolability of certain essential rights against political vicissitudes. 53. The framers of the Indian Constitution followed the American model in adopting and incorporating the Fundamental Rights for the people of India. American Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause not only protects the property but also life and liberty, similarly Article 21 of the Indian Constitution asserts the importance of Article 21. The said Article reads as under:"no person shall be deprived for his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law" The right secured by Article 21 is available to every citizen or non-citizen, according to this article, two rights are secured. 1. Right to life 2 Right to personal liberty. 54. Life and personal liberty are the most prized possessions of an individual. The inner urge for freedom is a natural phenomenon of every human being. Respect for life, liberty and property is not merely a norm or a policy of the State but an essential requirement of any civilized society. 55. This court defined the term "personal liberty" immediately after the Constitution came in force in India in the case of A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27. The expression `personal liberty' has wider as well narrow meaning. In the wider sense it includes not only immunity from arrest and detention but also freedom of speech, association etc. In the narrow sense, it means immunity from arrest and detention. The juristic conception of `personal liberty', when used the latter sense, is that it consists freedom of movement and locomotion. 56. Mukherjea, J. in the said judgment observed that `Personal Liberty' means liberty relating to or concerning the person or body of the individual and it is, in this sense, antithesis of physical restraint or coercion. `Personal Liberty' means a personal right not to be subjected to imprisonment, arrest or other physical coercion in any manner that does not admit of legal justification. This negative right constitutes the essence of personal liberty. Patanjali Shastri, J. however, said that whatever may be the generally accepted connotation of the expression `personal liberty', it was used in Article 21 in a sense



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail which excludes the freedom dealt with in Article 19. Thus, the Court gave a narrow interpretation to `personal liberty'. This court excluded certain varieties of rights, as separately mentioned in Article 19, from the purview of `personal liberty' guaranteed by Art. 21. 57. In Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and Others AIR 1963 SC 1295, Subba Rao, J. defined `personal liberty, as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachment on his person whether these are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measure. The court held that `personal liberty' in Article 21 includes all varieties of freedoms except those included in Article 19. 58. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248, this court expanded the scope of the expression `personal liberty' as used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court rejected the argument that the expression `personal liberty' must be so interpreted as to avoid overlapping between Article 21 and Article 19(1). It was observed: "The expression `personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a man and some of them have been raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19." So, the phrase `personal liberty' is very wide and includes all possible rights which go to constitute personal liberty, including those which are mentioned in Article 19. 59. Right to life is one of the basic human right and not even the State has the authority to violate that right. [State of A.P. v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Others (2000) 5 SCC 712]. 60. Article 21 is a declaration of deep faith and belief in human rights. In this pattern of guarantee woven in Chapter III of this Constitution, personal liberty of man is at root of Article 21 and each expression used in this Article enhances human dignity and values. It lays foundation for a society where rule of law has primary and not arbitrary or capricious exercise of power. [Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others (1994) 3 SCC 569]. 61. While examining the ambit, scope and content of the expression "personal liberty" in the said case, it was held that the term is used in this Article as a compendious term to include within itself all varieties of rights which goes to make up the "personal liberties" or man other than those dealt within several clauses of Article 19(1). While Article 19(1) deals with particular species or attributes of that freedom, "personal liberty" in Article 21 takes on and comprises the residue. 62. The early approach to Article 21 which guarantees right to life and personal liberty was circumscribed by literal interpretation in A.K. Gopalan (supra). But in course of time, the scope of this application of the Article against arbitrary encroachment by the executives has been expanded by liberal interpretation of the components of the Article in tune with the relevant international understanding. Thus protection against arbitrary privation of "life" no longer means mere protection of death, or physical injury, but also an invasion of the right to "live" with human dignity and would include all these aspects of life which would go to make a man's life meaningful and worth living, such as his tradition, culture and heritage. [Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and Others (1981) 1 SCC 608] 63. Article 21 has received very liberal interpretation by this court. It was held: "The right to live with human dignity and same does not connote continued drudging. It takes within its fold some process of civilization which makes life worth living and expanded concept of life would mean the tradition, culture, and heritage of the person concerned." [P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik v. Union of India and Another (1994) 3 SCC 394.] 64. The object of Article 21 is to prevent encroachment upon personal liberty in any manner. Article 21 is repository of all human rights essentially for a person or a citizen. A fruitful and meaningful life presupposes full of dignity, honour, health and welfare. In the modern "Welfare Philosophy", it is for the State to ensure these essentials of life to all its citizens, and if possible to non-citizens. While invoking the provisions of Article 21, and by referring to the oft-quoted statement of Joseph Addision, "Better to die ten thousand deaths than wound my honour", the Apex court in Khedat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath v. State of M.P. and Others (1994) 6 SCC 260 posed to itself a question "If dignity or honour vanishes what remains of life"? This is the significance of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under the Constitution of India in its third part. 65. This court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Another (1986) 3 SCC 156 observed that the law must respond and be responsive to the



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail felt and discernible compulsions of circumstances that would be equitable, fair and justice, and unless there is anything to the contrary in the statute, Court must take cognizance of that fact and act accordingly. 66. This court remarked that an undertrial prisoner should not be put in fetters while he is being taken from prison to Court or back to prison from Court. Steps other than putting him in fetters will have to be taken to prevent his escape. In Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980) 3 SCC 526, this court has made following observations: "....... The Punjab Police Manual, in so far as it puts the ordinary Indian beneath the better class breed (para 26.21A and 26.22 of Chapter XXVI) is untenable and arbitrary. Indian humans shall not be dichotomised and the common run discriminated against regarding handcuffs. The provisions in para 26.22 that every under-trial who is accused of a nonbailable offence punishable with more than 3 years prison term shall be routinely handcuffed is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21. The nature of the accusation is not the criterion. The clear and present danger of escape breaking out of the police control is the determinant. And for this there must be clear material, not glib assumption, record of reasons and judicial oversight and summary hearing and direction by the court where the victim is produced. ... Handcuffs are not summary punishment vicariously imposed at police level, at once obnoxious and irreversible. Armed escorts, worth the salt, can overpower any unarmed undertrial and extra guards can make up exceptional needs. In very special situations, the application of irons is not ruled out. The same reasoning applies to (e) and (f). Why torture the prisoner because others will demonstrate or attempt his rescue? The plain law of undertrial custody is thus contrary to the unedifying escort practice. (Para 31) Even in cases where, in extreme circumstances, handcuffs have to be put on the prisoner, the escorting authority must record contemporaneously the reason for doing so. Otherwise, under Article 21 the procedure will be unfair and bad in law. The minions of the police establishment must make good their security recipes by getting judicial approval. And, once the court directs that handcuffs shall be off, no escorting authority can overrule judicial direction. This is implicit in Article 21 which insists upon fairness, reasonableness and justice in the very procedure which authorities stringent deprivation of life and liberty. (Para 30) It is implicit in Articles 14 and 19 that when there is no compulsive need to fetter a person's limbs, it is sadistic, capricious, despotic and demoralizing to humble a man by manacling him. Such arbitrary conduct surely slaps Article 14 on the face. The minimal freedom of movement which even a detainee is entitled to under Article 19 cannot be cut down cruelly by application of handcuffs or other hoops. It will be unreasonable so to do unless the State is able to make out that no other practical way of forbidding escape is available, the prisoner being so dangerous and desperate and the circumstances so hostile to safekeeping. (Para 23) Whether handcuffs or other restraint should be imposed on a prisoner is a matter for the decision of the authority responsible for his custody. But there is room for imposing supervisory regime over the exercise of that power. One sector of supervisory jurisdiction could appropriately lie with the court trying the accused, and it would be desirable for the custodial authority to inform that court of the circumstances in which, and the justification for, imposing a restraint on the body of the accused. It should be for the court concerned to work out the modalities of the procedure requisite for the purpose of enforcing such control." 67. After dealing with the concept of life and liberty under the Indian Constitution, we would like to have the brief survey of other countries to ascertain how life and liberty has been protected in other countries. UNITED KINGDOM 68. Life and personal liberty has been given prime importance in the United Kingdom. It was in 1215 that the people of England revolted against King John and enforced their rights, first time the King had acknowledged that there were certain rights of the subject could be called Magna Carta 1215. In 1628 the petition of rights was presented to King Charles-I which was the 1st step in the transfer of Sovereignty from the King to Parliament. It was passed as the Bill of Rights 1689.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 69. In the Magna Carta, it is stated "no free man shall be taken, or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or banished or any ways destroyed, nor will the King pass upon him or commit him to prison, unless by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land". 70. Right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights and any decision affecting human right or which may put an individual's life at risk must call for the most anxious scrutiny. See: Bugdaycay v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) 1 All ER 940. The sanctity of human life is probably the most fundamental of the human social values. It is recognized in all civilized societies and their legal system and by the internationally recognized statements of human rights. See: R on the application of Pretty v. Director of Public Prosecutions (2002) 1 All ER 1. U.S.A. 71. The importance of personal liberty is reflected in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of U.S.A. (1791) which declares as under :"No person shall be.....deprived of his life, liberty or property, without due process of law." (The `due process' clause was adopted in s.1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights Act, 1960. In the Canada Act, 1982, this expression has been substituted by `the principles of fundamental justice' [s.7]. 72. The Fourteenth Amendment imposes similar limitation on the State authorities. These two provisions are conveniently referred to as the `due process clauses'. Under the above clauses the American Judiciary claims to declare a law as bad, if it is not in accordance with `due process', even though the legislation may be within the competence of the Legislature concerned. Due process is conveniently understood means procedural regularity and fairness. (Constitutional Interpretation by Craig R. Ducat, 8 th Edn. 2002 p.475.). WEST GERMANY 73. Article 2(2) of the West German Constitution (1948) declares: "Everyone shall have the right to life and physical inviolability. The freedom of the individual shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only on the basis of the legal order." Though the freedom of life and liberty guaranteed by the above Article may be restricted, such restriction will be valid only if it is in conformity with the `legal order' (or `pursuant to a law, according to official translation). Being a basic right, the freedom guaranteed by Article 2(2) is binding on the legislative, administrative and judicial organs of the State [Article 1(3)]. This gives the individual the rights to challenge the validity of a law or an executive act violative the freedom of the person by a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court, under Article 93. Procedural guarantee is given by Articles 103(1) and 104. Article 104(1)-2(2) provides: "(1) The freedom of the individual may be restricted only on the basis of a formal law and only with due regard to the forms prescribed therein.......... (2) Only the Judge shall decide on the admissibility and continued deprivation of liberty." 74. These provisions correspond to Article 21 of our Constitution and the court is empowered to set a man to liberty if it appears that he has been imprisoned without the authority of a formal law or in contravention of the procedure prescribed there. JAPAN 75. Article XXXI of the Japanese Constitution of 1946 says : "No person shall be deprived of life or liberty nor shall any other criminal penalty be imposed, except according to procedure established by law." This article is similar to Article 21 of our Constitution save that it includes other criminal penalties, such as fine or forfeiture within its ambit. CANADA 76. Section 1(1) of the Canadian Bill of Rights Act, 1960, adopted the `Due Process' Clause from the American Constitution. But the difference in the Canadian set-up was due to the fact that this Act was not a constitutional instrument to impose a direct limitation on the Legislature but only a statute for interpretation of Canadian status, which, again, could be excluded from the purview of the Act of 1960, in particular cases, by an express declaration made by the Canadian Parliament itself (s.2). The result was obvious : The Canadian Supreme Court in R. v. Curr (1972) S.C.R. 889 held that the Canadian Court would not import `substantive reasonableness' into s.1(a), because of the unsalutary experience of substantive due process in the U.S.A.; and that as to `procedural reasonableness', s.1(a)



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail of the Bill of Rights Act only referred to `the legal processes recognized by Parliament and the Courts in Canada'. The result was that in Canada, the `due process clause' lost its utility as an instrument of judicial review of legislation and it came to mean practically the same thing as whatever the Legislature prescribes, - much the same as `procedure established by law' in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as interpreted in A.K. Gopalan (supra). BANGADESH 77. Article 32 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972 [3 SCW 385] reads as under: "No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty save in accordance with law." This provision is similar to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Consequently, unless controlled by some other provision, it should be interpreted as in India. PAKISTAN 78. Article 9 Right to life and Liberty. "Security of Person : No person shall be deprived of life and liberty save in accordance with law." NEPAL 79. In the 1962 - Constitution of Nepal, there is Article 11(1) which deals with right to life and liberty which is identical with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. INTERNATIONAL CHARTERS Universal Declaration, 1948. 80. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration says: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Article 9 provides: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile." Article 10 says: "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him." [As to its legal effect, see M. v. Organisation Belge, (1972) 45 Inter, LR 446 (447, 451, et. Sq.)] Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) 81. Article 9(1) says: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." European Convention on Human Rights, 1950. 82. This Convention contains a most elaborate and detailed codification of the rights and safeguards for the protection of life and personal liberty against arbitrary invasion. 83. In every civilized democratic country, liberty is considered to be the most precious human right of every person. The Law Commission of India in its 177th Report under the heading Ìntroduction to the doctrine of "arrest" has described as follows: "Liberty is the most precious of all the human rights". It has been the founding faith of the human race for more than 200 years. Both the American Declaration of Independence, 1776 and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, spoke of liberty being one of the natural and inalienable rights of man. The universal declaration of human rights adopted by the general assembly on United Nations on December 10, 1948 contains several articles designed to protect and promote the liberty of individual. So does the international covenant on civil and political rights, 1996. Above all, Article 21 of the Constitution of India proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his right to personal liberty except in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. Even Article 20(1) & (2) and Article 22 are born out of a concern for human liberty. As it is often said, "one realizes the value of liberty only when he is deprived of it." Liberty, along with equality is the most fundamental of human rights and the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Of equal importance is the maintenance of peace, law and order in the society. Unless, there is peace, no real progress is possible. Societal peace lends stability and security to the polity. It provides the necessary



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail conditions for growth, whether it is in the economic sphere or in the scientific and technological spheres." 84. Just as the Liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society's interest in maintenance of peace, law and order. Both are equally important. 85. It is a matter of common knowledge that a large number of undertrials are languishing in jail for a long time even for allegedly committing very minor offences. This is because section 438 Cr.P.C. has not been allowed its full play. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) clearly mentioned that section 438 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary because it was incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and before that other provisions for grant of bail were sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C. It is not extraordinary in the sense that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Some courts of smaller strength have erroneously observed that section 438 Cr.P.C. should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. Those orders are contrary to the law laid down by the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). 86. According to the report of the National Police Commission, the power of arrest is grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the courts need to take serious notice of it. When conviction rate is admittedly less than 10%, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The courts considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest vis-`-vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the accused that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court. 87. The complaint filed against the accused needs to be thoroughly examined including the aspect whether the complainant has filed false or frivolous complaint on earlier occasion. The court should also examine the fact whether there is any family dispute between the accused and the complainant and the complainant must be clearly told that if the complaint is found to be false or frivolous, then strict action will be taken against him in accordance with law. If the connivance between the complainant and the investigating officer is established then action be taken against the investigating officer in accordance with law. 88. The gravity of charge and exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended. Before arrest, the arresting officer must record the valid reasons which have led to the arrest of the accused in the case diary. In exceptional cases the reasons could be recorded immediately after the arrest, so that while dealing with the bail application, the remarks and observations of the arresting officer can also be properly evaluated by the court. 89. It is imperative for the courts to carefully and with meticulous precision evaluate the facts of the case. The discretion must be exercised on the basis of the available material and the facts of the particular case. In cases where the court is of the considered view that the accused has joined investigation and he is fully cooperating with the investigating agency and is not likely to abscond, in that event, custodial interrogation should be avoided. 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and at times for the entire community. Most people do not make any distinction between arrest at a pre-conviction stage or post-conviction stage. Whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to limitation of section 437 Cr.P.C.? 91. The question which arises for consideration is whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are unguided or uncanalised or are subject to all the limitations of section 437 Cr.P.C.? The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) has clearly observed that there is no justification for reading into section 438 Cr.P.C. and the limitations mentioned in section 437 Cr.P.C. The Court further observed that the plentitude of the section must be given its full play. The Constitution Bench has also observed that the High Court is not right in observing that the accused must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This virtually, reduces the salutary power conferred by section 438 Cr.P.C. to a dead letter. The Court observed that "We do not see why the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be suspected as containing something volatile or incendiary, which needs to be handled with the greatest care and caution imaginable." 92. As aptly observed in Sibbia's case (supra) that:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail “A wise exercise of judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hallmark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” 93. The Constitution Bench in the same judgment also observed that a person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints and conditions on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may deem fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall enlarged on bail. 94. The proper course of action ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusation available on the record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be granted and notice be issued to the public prosecutor. After hearing the public prosecutor the court may either reject the bail application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court would certainly be entitled to impose conditions for the grant of bail. The public prosecutor or complainant would be at liberty to move the same court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of bail any time if liberty granted by the court is misused. The bail granted by the court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case. 95. The order granting anticipatory bail for a limited duration and thereafter directing the accused to surrender and apply before a regular bail is contrary to the legislative intention and the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). 96. It is a settled legal position that the court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at the instance of the accused, the public prosecutor or the complainant on finding new material or circumstances at any point of time. 97. The intention of the legislature is quite clear that the power of grant or refusal of bail is entirely discretionary. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) has clearly stated that grant and refusal is discretionary and it should depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Constitution Bench in the said case has aptly observed that we must respect the wisdom of the Legislature entrusting this power to the superior courts namely, the High Court and the Court of Session. The Constitution Bench observed as under: "We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which, by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognized over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the grounds that, after all "the legislature in, its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom. If they err, they are liable to be corrected." GRANT OF BAIL FOR LIMITED PERIOD IS CONTRARY TO THE LEGISLATIVE INTENTION AND LAW DECLARED BY THE CONSTITUTION BENCH: 98. The court which grants the bail has the right to cancel the bail according to the provisions of the General Clauses Act but ordinarily after hearing the public prosecutor when the bail order is confirmed then the benefit of the grant of the bail should continue till the end of the trial of that case. The judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh (supra) is contrary to legislative intent and the spirit of the very provisions of the anticipatory bail itself and has resulted in an artificial and unreasonable restriction on the scope of enactment contrary to the legislative intention. 99. The restriction on the provision of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. limits the personal liberty of the accused granted under Article 21 of the constitution. The added observation is nowhere found in the enactment and bringing in restrictions which are not found in the enactment is again an



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail unreasonable restriction. It would not stand the test of fairness and reasonableness which is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution after the decision in Maneka Gandhi's case (supra) in which the court observed that: “in order to meet the challenge of Article 21 of the Constitution the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable.” 100. Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not mention anything about the duration to which a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest can be granted. The order granting anticipatory bail is a direction specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused and he is released on bail, the concerned court would be fully justified in imposing conditions including direction of joining investigation. 101. The court does not use the expression ànticipatory bail' but it provides for issuance of direction for the release on bail by the High Court or the Court of Sessions in the event of arrest. According to the aforesaid judgment of Salauddin's case, the accused has to surrender before the trial court and only thereafter he/she can make prayer for grant of bail by the trial court. The trial court would release the accused only after he has surrendered. 102. In pursuance to the order of the Court of Sessions or the High Court, once the accused is released on bail by the trial court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial court and again apply for regular bail. 103. The court must bear in mind that at times the applicant would approach the court for grant of anticipatory bail on mere apprehension of being arrested on accusation of having committed a nonbailable offence. In fact, the investigating or concerned agency may not otherwise arrest that applicant who has applied for anticipatory bail but just because he makes an application before the court and gets the relief from the court for a limited period and thereafter he has to surrender before the trial court and only thereafter his bail application can be considered and life of anticipatory bail comes to an end. This may lead to disastrous and unfortunate consequences. The applicant who may not have otherwise lost his liberty loses it because he chose to file application of anticipatory bail on mere apprehension of being arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. No arrest should be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of power to arrest is one thing and the justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest apart from his power to do so. This finding of the said judgment (supra) is contrary to the legislative intention and law which has been declared by a Constitution Bench of this court in Sibbia's case (supra). 104. The validity of the restrictions imposed by the Apex Court, namely, that the accused released on anticipatory bail must submit himself to custody and only thereafter can apply for regular bail. This is contrary to the basic intention and spirit of section 438 Cr.P.C. It is also contrary to Article 21 of the Constitution. The test of fairness and reasonableness is implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Directing the accused to surrender to custody after the limited period amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty. 105. It is a settled legal position crystallized by the Constitution Bench of this court in Sibbia's case (supra) that the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it. 106. It is unreasonable to lay down strict, inflexible and rigid rules for exercise of such discretion by limiting the period of which an order under this section could be granted. We deem it appropriate to reproduce some observations of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this court in the Sibbia's case (supra). "The validity of that section must accordingly be examined by the test of fairness and reasonableness which is implicit in Article 21. If the legislature itself were to impose an unreasonable restriction on the grant of anticipatory bail, such a restriction could have been struck down as being violative of Article 21. Therefore, while determining the scope of Section 438, the court should not impose any unfair or unreasonable limitation on the individual's right to obtain an order of anticipatory bail. Imposition of an unfair or unreasonable limitation, according to the learned Counsel, would be violative of Article 21, irrespective of whether it is imposed by legislation or by judicial decision.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail xxx xxx xxx Clause (1) of Section 438 is couched in terms, broad and unqualified. By any known canon of construction, words of width and amplitude ought not generally to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute restraints and conditions which the legislature itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose. This is especially true when the statutory provision which falls for consideration is designed to secure a valuable right like the right to personal freedom and involves the application of a presumption as salutary and deep grained in our criminal jurisprudence as the presumption of innocence." xxx xxx xxx "I desire in the first instance to point out that the discretion given by the section is very wide. . . Now it seems to me that when the Act is so expressed to provide a wide discretion, ... it is not advisable to lay down any rigid rules for guiding that discretion. I do not doubt that the rules enunciated by the Master of the Rolls in the present case are useful maxims in general, and that in general they reflect the point of view from which judges would regard an application for relief. But I think it ought to be distinctly understood that there may be cases in which any or all of them may be disregarded. If it were otherwise, the free discretion given by the statute would be fettered by limitations which have nowhere been enacted. It is one thing to decide what is the true meaning of the language contained in an Act of Parliament. It is quite a different thing to place conditions upon a free discretion entrusted by statute to the court where the conditions are not based upon statutory enactment at all. It is not safe, I think, to say that the court must and will always insist upon certain things when the Act does not require them, and the facts of some unforeseen case may make the court wish it had kept a free hand." xxx xxx xxx "The concern of the courts generally is to preserve their discretion without meaning to abuse it. It will be strange if we exhibit concern to stultify the discretion conferred upon the courts by law." 107. The Apex Court in Salauddin's case (supra) held that anticipatory bail should be granted only for a limited period and on the expiry of that duration it should be left to the regular court to deal with the matter is not the correct view. The reasons quoted in the said judgment is that anticipatory bail is granted at a stage when an investigation is incomplete and the court is not informed about the nature of evidence against the alleged offender. The said reason would not be right as the restriction is not seen in the enactment and bail orders by the High Court and Sessions Court are granted under sections 437 and 439 also at such stages and they are granted till the trial. 108. The view expressed by this Court in all the above referred judgments have to be reviewed and once the anticipatory bail is granted then the protection should ordinarily be available till the end of the trial unless the interim protection by way of the grant of anticipatory bail is curtailed when the anticipatory bail granted by the court is cancelled by the court on finding fresh material or circumstances or on the ground of abuse of the indulgence by the accused. SCOPE AND AMBIT OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL: 109. A good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. could have been avoided in case the Constitution Bench decision of this court in Sibbia's case (supra) was correctly understood, appreciated and applied. 119. This Court in the Sibbia's case (supra) laid down the following principles with regard to anticipatory bail: (a) Section 438(1) is to be interpreted in light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (b) Filing of FIR is not a condition precedent to exercise of power under section 438. (c) Order under section 438 would not affect the right of police to conduct investigation. (d) Conditions mentioned in section 437 cannot be read into section 438. (e) Although the power to release on anticipatory bail can be described as of an "extraordinary" character this would "not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only." Powers are discretionary to be exercised in light of the circumstances of each case.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail (f) Initial order can be passed without notice to the Public Prosecutor. Thereafter, notice must be issued forthwith and question ought to be re- examined after hearing. Such ad interim order must conform to requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant. 110. The Law Commission in July 2002 has severely criticized the police of our country for the arbitrary use of power of arrest which, the Commission said, is the result of the vast discretionary powers conferred upon them by this Code. The Commission expressed concern that there is no internal mechanism within the police department to prevent misuse of law in this manner and the stark reality that complaint lodged in this regard does not bring any result. The Commission intends to suggest amendments in the Criminal Procedure Code and has invited suggestions from various quarters. Reference is made in this Article to the 41st Report of the Law Commission wherein the Commission saw `no justification' to require a person to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail even when there are reasonable grounds for holding that the person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty. Discretionary power to order anticipatory bail is required to be exercised keeping in mind these sentiments and spirit of the judgments of this court in Sibbia's case (supra) and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others (1994) 4 SCC 260. Relevant consideration for exercise of the power 111. No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. We are clearly of the view that no attempt should be made to provide rigid and inflexible guidelines in this respect because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with the legislative intention the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on facts and circumstances of each case. As aptly observed in the Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia's case (supra) that the High Court or the Court of Sessions to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 Cr.P.C. by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. In any event, this is the legislative mandate which we are bound to respect and honour. 112. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail: (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences. (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her. (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people. (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 113. The arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record. 114. These are some of the factors which should be taken into consideration while deciding the anticipatory bail applications. These factors are by no means exhaustive but they are only illustrative in nature because it is difficult to clearly visualize all situations and circumstances in which a person may pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise discretion is exercised by the concerned judge, after consideration of entire material on record then most of the grievances in favour of grant of or refusal of bail will be taken care of. The legislature in its wisdom has entrusted the power to exercise this jurisdiction only to the judges of the superior courts. In consonance with the legislative intention we should accept the fact that the discretion would be properly exercised. In any event, the option of approaching the superior court against the court of Sessions or the High Court is always available. Irrational and Indiscriminate arrest are gross violation of human rights. 115. In Joginder Kumar's case (supra), a three Judge Bench of this Court has referred to the 3rd report of the National Police Commission, in which it is mentioned that the quality of arrests by the Police in India mentioned power of arrest as one of the chief sources of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60% of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2% of the expenditure of the jails. 116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 117 In case, the State consider the following suggestions in proper perspective then perhaps it may not be necessary to curtail the personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner. These suggestions are only illustrative and not exhaustive. (1) Direct the accused to join investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested. (2) Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of properties or the Fixed Deposit Receipts/Share Certificates of the accused. (3) Direct the accused to execute bonds; (4) The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case. (5) The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided. (6) Bank accounts be frozen for small duration during investigation. 118.In case the arrest is imperative, according to the facts of the case, in that event, the arresting officer must clearly record the reasons for the arrest of the accused before the arrest in the case diary, but in exceptional cases where it becomes imperative to arrest the accused immediately, the reasons be recorded in the case diary immediately after the arrest is made without loss of any time so that the court has an opportunity to properly consider the case for grant or refusal of bail in the light of reasons recorded by the arresting officer. 119. Exercise of jurisdiction under section 438 of Cr.P.C. is extremely important judicial function of a judge and must be entrusted to judicial officers with some experience and good track record. Both individual and society have vital interest in orders passed by the courts in anticipatory bail applications. 120. It is imperative for the High Courts through its judicial academies to periodically organize workshops, symposiums, seminars and lectures by the experts to sensitize judicial officers, police officers and investigating officers so that they can properly comprehend the importance of personal liberty vis-`-vis social interests. They must learn to maintain fine balance between the personal liberty and the social interests.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 121. The performance of the judicial officers must be periodically evaluated on the basis of the cases decided by them. In case, they have not been able to maintain balance between personal liberty and societal interests, the lacunae must be pointed out to them and they may be asked to take corrective measures in future. Ultimately, the entire discretion of grant or refusal of bail has to be left to the judicial officers and all concerned must ensure that grant or refusal of bail is considered basically on the facts and circumstances of each case. 122. In our considered view, the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) has comprehensively dealt with almost all aspects of the concept of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. A number of judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the parties consisting of Benches of smaller strength where the courts have observed that the anticipatory bail should be of limited duration only and ordinarily on expiry of that duration or standard duration, the court granting the anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter. This view is clearly contrary to the view taken by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra). In the preceding paragraphs, it is clearly spelt out that no limitation has been envisaged by the Legislature under section 438 Cr.P.C. The Constitution Bench has aptly observed that "we see no valid reason for rewriting section 438 with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court or the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it". 123. In view of the clear declaration of law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra), it would not be proper to limit the life of anticipatory bail. When the court observed that the anticipatory bail is for limited duration and thereafter the accused should apply to the regular court for bail, that means the life of section 438 Cr.P.C. would come to an end after that limited duration. This limitation has not been envisaged by the legislature. The Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) clearly observed that it is not necessary to re-write section 438 Cr.P.C. Therefore, in view of the clear declaration of the law by the Constitution Bench, the life of the order under section 438 Cr.P.C. granting bail cannot be curtailed. 124. The ratio of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case (supra) perhaps was not brought to the notice of their Lordships who had decided the cases of Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, K. L. Verma v. State and Another, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal and Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (supra). 125. In Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar (2008) 1 SCC 632, a two-Judge Bench of this Court observed: "the power exercisable under section 438 Cr.P.C. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it should be exercised only in exceptional cases.” This approach is contrary to the legislative intention and the Constitution Bench's decision in Sibbia's case (supra). 126. We deem it appropriate to reiterate and assert that discretion vested in the court in all matters should be exercised with care and circumspection depending upon the facts and circumstances justifying its exercise. Similarly, the discretion vested with the court under section 438 Cr.P.C. should also be exercised with caution and prudence. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject to the wide power and discretion conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of self-imposed limitations. 127. The judgments and orders mentioned in paras 135 and 136 are clearly contrary to the law declared by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sibbia's case (supra). These judgments and orders are also contrary to the legislative intention. The Court would not be justified in re-writing section 438 Cr.P.C. 128. Now we deem it imperative to examine the issue of per incuriam raised by the learned counsel for the parties. In Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Company Limited (1994) All ER 293 the House of Lords observed that Ìncuria' literally means `carelessness'. In practice per incuriam appears to mean per ignoratium. English courts have developed this principle in relaxation of the rule of stare decisis. The `quotable in law' is avoided and ignored if it is rendered, ìn ignoratium of a statute or other binding authority. The same has been accepted, approved and adopted by this court while interpreting Article 141 of the Constitution which embodies the doctrine of precedents as a matter of law. "......... In Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edn.) Vol. 26: Judgment and Orders: Judicial Decisions as Authorities (pp. 297-98, para 578) per incuriam has been elucidated as under:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail "A decision is given per incuriam when the court has acted in ignorance of a previous decision of its own or of a court of coordinate jurisdiction which covered the case before it, in which case it must decide which case to follow (Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd., 1944 KB 718 at 729 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 at 300. In Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson, 1947 KB 842 : (1947) 2 All ER 193.); or when it has acted in ignorance of a House of Lords decision, in which case it must follow that decision; or when the decision is given in ignorance of the terms of a statute or rule having statutory force." 129. Lord Godard, C.J. in Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson (1947) 2 All ER 193 observed that where a case or statute had not been brought to the court's attention and the court gave the decision in ignorance or forgetfulness of the existence of the case or statute, it would be a decision rendered in per incuriam. 130. This court in Government of A.P. and Another v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by LRs. and Others (2000) 4 SCC 262 observed as under: "The rule of per incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent of the same court or the superior court rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue." 131. In a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh (1989) 2 SCC 754, Chief Justice Pathak observed as under: "The doctrine of binding precedent has the merit of promoting a certainty and consistency in judicial decisions, and enables an organic development of the law, besides providing assurance to the individual as to the consequence of transactions forming part of his daily affairs. And, therefore, the need for a clear and consistent enunciation of legal principle in the decisions of a court." 132. In Thota Sesharathamma and another v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by LRs. and others (1991) 4 SCC 312 a two Judge Bench of this Court held that the three Judge Bench decision in the case of Mst. Karmi v. Amru (1972) 4 SCC 86 was per incuriam and observed as under: "...It is a short judgment without adverting to any provisions of Section 14 (1) or 14(2) of the Act. The judgment neither makes any mention of any argument raised in this regard nor there is any mention of the earlier decision in Badri Pershad v. Smt. Kanso Devi. The decision in Mst. Karmi cannot be considered as an authority on the ambit and scope of Section 14(1) and (2) of the Act." 133. In R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and Another (1997) 1 SCC 9 a two Judge Bench of this Court observed that the question is whether it was bound to accept the decision rendered in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Mazdoor Sabha (1980) 2 SCC 593, which was not in conformity with the decision of a Constitution Bench in P.H. Kalyani v. Air France (1964) 2 SCR 104. J.S. Verma, J. speaking for the court observed as under: "With great respect, we must say that the above-quoted observations in Gujarat Steel at P. 215 are not in line with the decision in Kalyani which was binding or with D.C. Roy to which the learned Judge, Krishna Iyer, J. was a party. It also does not match with the underlying juristic principle discussed in Wade. For the reasons, we are bound to follow the Constitution Bench decision in Kalyani, which is the binding authority on the point." 134. In Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangra and others (2001) 4 SCC 448 a Constitution Bench of this Court ruled that a decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court binds a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court and that judicial discipline obliges them to follow it, regardless of their doubts about its correctness. 135. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 2 SCC 673 has observed that “the law laid down by this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.” 136. A three-Judge Bench of this court in Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 again reiterated the clear position of law that by virtue of Article 141 of the Constitution, the judgment of the Constitution Bench in State of Karnataka and Others v. Umadevi (3) and Others (2006) 4 SCC 1 is binding on all courts including this court till the same is overruled by a larger



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail Bench. The ratio of the Constitution Bench has to be followed by Benches of lesser strength. In para 90, the court observed as under:"We are distressed to note that despite several pronouncements on the subject, there is substantial increase in the number of cases involving violation of the basics of judicial discipline. The learned Single Judges and Benches of the High Courts refuse to follow and accept the verdict and law laid down by coordinate and even larger Benches by citing minor difference in the facts as the ground for doing so. Therefore, it has become necessary to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos and breach of discipline have grave impact on the credibility of judicial institution and encourages chance litigation. It must be remembered that predictability and certainty is an important hallmark of judicial jurisprudence developed in this country in the last six decades and increase in the frequency of conflicting judgments of the superior judiciary will do incalculable harm to the system inasmuch as the courts at the grass roots will not be able to decide as to which of the judgments lay down the correct law and which one should be followed." 137. In Subhash Chandra and Another v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Others (2009) 15 SCC 458, this court again reiterated the settled legal position that Benches of lesser strength are bound by the judgments of the Constitution Bench and any Bench of smaller strength taking contrary view is per incuriam. The court in para 110 observed as under:"Should we consider S. Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu (2005) 3 SCC 1- to be an obiter following the said decision is the question which arises herein. We think we should. The decisions referred to hereinbefore clearly suggest that we are bound by a Constitution Bench decision. We have referred to two Constitution Bench decisions, namely, Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC 139 and E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) had been followed by this Court in a large number of decisions including the three-Judge Bench decisions. S. Pushpa (supra) therefore, could not have ignored either Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) or other decisions following the same only on the basis of an administrative circular issued or otherwise and more so when the constitutional scheme as contained in clause (1) of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India putting the State and Union Territory in the same bracket. Following Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 therefore, we are of the opinion that the dicta in S. Pushpa (supra) is an obiter and does not lay down any binding ratio." 138. The analysis of English and Indian Law clearly leads to the irresistible conclusion that not only the judgment of a larger strength is binding on a judgment of smaller strength but the judgment of a co-equal strength is also binding on a Bench of judges of co-equal strength. In the instant case, judgments mentioned in paragraphs 135 and 136 are by two or three judges of this court. These judgments have clearly ignored a Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Sibbia's case (supra) which has comprehensively dealt with all the facets of anticipatory bail enumerated under section 438 of Cr.P.C.. Consequently, judgments mentioned in paragraphs 135 and 136 of this judgment are per incuriam. 139. In case there is no judgment of a Constitution Bench or larger Bench of binding nature and if the court doubts the correctness of the judgments by two or three judges, then the proper course would be to request Hon'ble the Chief Justice to refer the matter to a larger Bench of appropriate strength. 140. In the instant case there is a direct judgment of the Constitution Bench of this court in Sibbia's case (supra) dealing with exactly the same issue regarding ambit, scope and object of the concept of anticipatory bail enumerated under section 438 Cr.P.C. The controversy is no longer res integra. We are clearly bound to follow the said judgment of the Constitution Bench. The judicial discipline obliges us to follow the said judgment in letter and spirit. 141. In our considered view the impugned judgment and order of the High Court declining anticipatory bail to the appellant cannot be sustained and is consequently set aside. 142. We direct the appellant to join the investigation and fully cooperate with the investigating agency. In the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 143. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms of the aforementioned observations. [AIR 1980 SC 1632 = (1980) 2 SCC 565 = 1980 (3) SCR 383 = 1980 CRI. L. J. 1125 = (1980) 1 SCC(Cri) 465 = 1980 Cr LR 475] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J.I., P. N. BHAGWATI, N. L. UNTWALIA, R. S. PATHAK AND O. CHINNAPPA, REDDY, JJ. ) GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB Criminal Appeals Nos. 335 to 339, etc. of 1977 and 1, 15 to 17 etc. of 1978 and Spl. Leave Petn. (Criminal) Nos. 260, 272 to 274 etc. of 1978- Decided on 09-4-1980 (From: Punjab and Haryana) Constitution Of India Art.21 - Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sections.438, 46 - Evidence Act, 1872 Section.27 -Bail-Anticipatory Bail-Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974), Scope of- Judicial balancing of personal liberty and the investigational powers of the Police, explained. - Held: 1. The society has a vital stake in both of these interests namely, personal liberty and the investigational power of the police, though their relative importance at any given time depends upon the complexion and restraints of political conditions. The Court's task is how best to balance these interests while determining the scope of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. The High Court and the Court of Session should be left to exercise their jurisdiction under section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience, they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the ground that, after all, "the legislature in its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to exercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted to their care by the legislature in its wisdom. If they err, they are liable to be corrected. 3. Section 438(1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief', for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non- bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. Section 438(1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise, the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large, as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusation, likely or unlikely. Secondly, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for granting



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under Section 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of Section 438. Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the exercise of the power under Section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F.I.R. is not yet filed. Fourthly, anticipatory bail can be granted even after an F.I.R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. Fifthly, the provisions of Section 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. The grant of "anticipatory bail" to an accused who is under arrest involves a contradiction in terms, in so far as the offence or offences for which he is arrested, are concerned. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under Section 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested. 4. However, a "blanket order" of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. This flows from the very language of the section which requires the appellant to show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under Section 438(1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for which ever offence whatsoever". That is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail, an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which, no concrete information can possibly be bad. The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. It is unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his application with the meticulousness of a pleading in a civil case and such is not requirement of the section. But specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred by the section. Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under Section 438(1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if the commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum. 5. An order of bail can be passed under section 438(1) of the Code without notice to the Public Prosecutor. But notice should issue to the public prosecutor or the Government Advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. The ad-interim order too must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 6. Equally the operation of an order passed under section 438(1) need not necessarily be limited in point of time. The Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of an F.I.R. in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may in such cases be directed to obtain an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonably short period after the filing of the F.I.R. as aforesaid. But this need not be followed as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. 7. Bail is basically release from restraint, more particularly release from the custody of the police. The act of arrest directly affects freedom of movement of the person arrested by the police, and speaking generally, an order of bail gives back to the accused that freedom on condition that he will appear to take his trial. Personal recognizance suretyship bonds and such other modalities are the means by which an assurance is secured from the accused that though he has been released on bail, he will present himself as the trial of offence or offences of which he is charged and for which he was arrested. The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest. Police custody is an inevitable concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences. An order of anticipatory bail constitutes, so to say, an insurance against police custody following upon arrest for offence or offences in respect of which the order is issued. In other words, unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. Section 46(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with how arrests are to be made, provides that in making the arrest the police officer or other person making the arrest "shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action". A direction under section 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from this 'touch' or confinement. 8. No one can accuse the police of possessing a healing touch nor indeed does anyone have misgivings in regard to constraints consequent upon confinement in police custody. But, society has come to accept and acquiesce in all that follows upon a police arrest with a certain amount of sangfroid, in so far as the ordinary rut of criminal investigation is concerned. It is the normal day-today business of the police to investigate into charges brought before them and, broadly and generally, they have nothing to gain, not favours at any rate, by subjecting ordinary criminal to needless harassment. But the crimes, the criminals and even the complaints can occasionally possess extraordinary features. When the even flow of life becomes turbid, the police can be called upon to inquire into charges arising out of political antagonism. The powerful processes of criminal law can then be perverted for achieving extraneous ends. Attendant upon such investigations, when the police are not free agents within their sphere of duty, is a great amount of inconvenience, harassment and humiliation. That can even take the form of the parading of a respectable person in hand-cuffs, apparently on way to a court of justice. The foul deed is done when an adversary is exposed to social ridicule and obloquy, no matter when and whether a conviction is secured or is at all possible. It is in order to meet such situations, though not limited to these contingencies, that the power to grant anticipatory bail was introduced into the Code of 1973. 9. Clause (1) of Section 438 is couched in terms, broad and unqualified. By any known canon of construction, words of width and amplitude ought not generally to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute restraints and conditions which the legislature itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose. This is especially true when the statutory provision which falls for consideration is designed to secure a valuable right like the right to personal freedom and involves the application of



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail a presumption as salutary and deep grained in our Criminal Jurisprudence as the presumption of innocence. The legislature conferred a wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail because it evidently felt, firstly, that it would be difficult to enumerate the conditions under which anticipatory bail should or should not be granted and secondly; because the intention was to allow the higher courts in the echelon a somewhat free hand in the grant of relief in the nature of anticipatory bail. That is why, departing from the terms of Sections 437 and 439, Section 438(1) uses the language that the High Court or the Court of Session "may, if it thinks fit" direct that the applicant be released on bail. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 is a further and clearer manifestation of the same legislative intent to confer a wide discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. It provides that the High Court or the Court of Session, while issuing a direction for the grant of anticipatory bail, "may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit" including the conditions which are set out in clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2). The proof of legislative intent can best be found in the language which the legislature uses. Ambiguities can undoubtedly be resolved by resort to extraneous aids but words, as wide and explicit as have been used in Section 438, must be given their full effect, especially when to refuse to do so will result in undue impairment of the freedom of the individual and the presumption of innocence. It has to be borne in mind that anticipatory bail is sought when there is a mere apprehension of arrest on the accusation that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence. A person who has yet to lose his freedom by being arrested asks for freedom in the event of arrest. That is the stage at which it is imperative to protect his freedom, in so far as one may, and to give full play to the presumption that he is innocent. In fact, the stage at which anticipatory bail is generally sought brings about its striking dissimilarity with the situation in which a person who is arrested for the commission of a non-bailable offences asks for bail. In the latter situation, adequate data is available to the Court, or can be called for by it, in the light of which it can grant or refuse relief and while granting it, modify it by the imposition of all or any of the conditions mentioned in Section 437. 10. The amplitude of judicial discretion which is given to the High Court and the Court of Sessions, to impose such conditions as they may think fit while granting anticipatory bail, should not be cut down, by a process of construction, by reading into the statute conditions which are not to be found therein like those evolved by the High Court. The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. Similarly, they must be left free to refuse bail if the circumstances of the case so warrant, on considerations similar to those mentioned in Section 437 or which are generally considered to be relevant under Section 439 of the Code. Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two cases are alike on facts and therefore, Courts have to be allowed a little free play in the joints if the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly these are higher courts manned by experienced persons, secondly their order are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be exercised by courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able to take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges. Hyman and Anr. v. Rose, 1912 A.C. 623; referred to 11. Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. And it will be strange if, by employing judicial artifices and techniques, this Court cuts down the discretion so wisely conferred upon the Courts, by devising a formula which will confine the power to grant



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail anticipatory bail within a strait-jacket. While laying down cast-iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, as the High Court has done, it is apt to be overlooked that even Judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situations. Life is never static and every situation has to be assessed in the context of emerging concerns as and when it arises. Therefore, even if this Court were to frame a 'Code for the grant of anticipatory bail', which really is the business of the legislature, it can at best furnish broad guidelines and cannot compel blind adherence. In which case to grant bail and in which to refuse it is, in the very nature of things, a matter of discretion. But apart from the fact that the question is inherently of a kind which calls for the use of discretion from case to case, the legislature has, in terms express, relegated the decision of that question to the discretion of the Court, by providing that it may grant bail "if it thinks fit". The concern the Courts generally is to preserve their discretion without meaning to abuse it. It will be strange if the Court exhibits concern to stultify the discretion conferred upon the Courts by law. Discretion, therefore, ought to be permitted to remain in the domain of discretion, to be exercised objectively and open to correction by the higher courts. The safety of discretionary power lies in this twin protection which provides a safeguard against its abuse. 12. It is true that the functions of judiciary and the police are in a sense complementary and not overlapping. An order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the usual conditions incorporated in a direction issued under section 438(1) are those recommended in Sub-section (2)(i) and (ii) which require the applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not tamper with the witnesses during and after the investigation. While granting relief under Section 438(1), appropriate conditions can be imposed under Section 438(2), so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail. 13. In Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1977] 2 SCR 52, this Court was considering whether the provisions of Section 438 relating to anticipatory bail stand overruled or repealed by virtue of Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 or whether both the provisions can by rule of harmonious interpretion, exist side by side. It was in that context that it was observed that "As section 438 immediately follows Section 437 which is the main provision for bail in respect of non-bailable offences, it is manifest that the conditions imposed by s. 437(1) are implicitly contained in Section 438 of the Code". These observations regarding the nature of the power conferred by section 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions mentioned in Section 437 should be read into section 438 cannot, therefore be treated as the ratio of the decision. The power conferred by section 438 is of an "extra ordinary" character only in the sense that it is not ordinarily resorted to like the power conferred by sections 437 and 439. 14. Since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of section 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in Section 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 15. In regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior inotive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally, be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the state" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail Advocate(S): Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate (335, 430, 431, 438); Mr. Gobind Das, Sr. Advocate (153), Mr. K. S. Thapar, Advocate (506 and 154/78), Mr. Dilip Singh, Advocate (506 and 154/78); Mrs. Sunanda Bhandare, Advocate, M/s. A. N. Karkhanis, Deepak Thaper, Advocates (in 335, 430, 431, 506/77 and 154/78) and Miss Malini, Advocate for Appellants in Crl. A. Nos. 335, 365, 430, 431, 506, 508, 499/77, 130, 141, 142, 153, 154 and Petitioners in SLPs. 272-274/78; Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate (350), Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate (338), Mr. O. P. Sharma, Advocate MR. R. C. Bhatia, Advocate for Appellants in Crl A. Nos. 336 to 338, 350, 396, 397-399, 473, 474/77 and 1, 15 to 17, 69, 70, 81,82, 98 and 149 and 109/78; Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for Appellant in Crl. A. No. 339/77; Mr. B. S. Bindra, Sr. Advocate Mr. S. M. Ashri, Advocate Mrs. Lakshmi Arvind, Advocate for Appellants in Crl. As. Nos. 347, 366, 415-420, 477, 511, 512, 469/77 and 145/78; Mr. P.R. Mridul, Sr. Advocate (M/s. H. K. Puri, Aruneshwar Prasad and Vivek Seth, Advocate for Appellant in Crl. A. No. 346/77); Mr. L. N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate (406 and 352), M/s. R. P. Singh, L. R. Singh, Suman Kapoor and Sukumar Sahu (406 and 352), Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Sr. Advocate (436), M/s. P. P. Singh, Advocate (435) and Mr. R. K. Jain, Advocate for Appellants in Crl. A. Nos. 351, 352, 406, 438-40, 463/77; Mr. S. K. Jain, Advocate for Appellant in Crl. A. No. 53/78; Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (367), M/s. M. M. L. Srivastava R. Satish and E. C. Agrawala, Advocate for Appellant in Crl. A Nos. 367/77 and SLP 383/78; Mr. V. C. Mahajan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Sr. Advocate M/s. S. K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and P. N. Puri, Advocates for Appellant in Crl. A. Nos. 383/78 and 498/77; Mr. K. K. Mohan, Advocate for Appellant in SLP 260/78; Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rathin Dass, Advocate for Appellant in Crl. A. Nos. 40, 41/78; Mr. M. M. L. Srivastava, Advocate for Appellant in SLP 388/78; Mr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate Mr. N. S. Dass Behl, Advocate for Appellants in Crl. A. Nos. 38/78 and SLP 479/78; Mr. Soli J Sorabjee, Addl. Sol. Genl. (335), M/s. Bishamber Lal Khanna (355), Hardev Singh, R. S. Sodhi, and B. B. Singh, Advocates for Appellants in Cr. As. Nos. 447-449/77 and Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 335-339, 347, 350-52 366, 367, 388, 396-398, 406, 415-420, 438-440, 463, 473, 474, 477, 498, 511/77, 1, 15-17/78, 469, 510/77, 109/78 and SLP Nos. 388/78, Crl. A. No. 98/78 and SLP No. 260/78; Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, Addl. Sol Genl. (430), Mr. Thakur Naubat Singh, Dy. Adv. Genl. Haryana, (M/s. S. N. Anand, Advocate (431 and 499), Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Advocate for Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 365, 430 and 431/77, 508, 499/77 and 38, 141 and 142/78; Mr. M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates for Respondents in Crl. A. Nos. 40 and 41/78; Mr. M. M. Punchi and P. C. Bhartari, Advocates for Appellant in Crl. A. No. 346/77; M/s. J. K. Gupta, B. R. Agarwala, Janendra Lal, Advocates for Vice-Chancellor, Punjab University in Crl. A. No. 346/77. JUDGEMENT Chandrachud, C, J.:- These appeals by Special Leave involve a question of great public importance bearing, at once, on personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. The society has a vital stake in both of these interests, though their relative importance at any given time depends upon



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail the complexion and restraints of political conditions. Our task in these appeals is how best to balance these interests while determining the scope of S. 438 of the Cr. P. C., 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974). 2. Section 438 provides for the issuance of direction for the grant of bail to a person who apprehends arrest. It reads thus: "488. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section, and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub sec. (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including. (i) a condition that the persons shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) a condition that the person shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; (iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-sec. (3) of S. 437, as if the bail were granted under that section. (3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-sec. (1)." 3. Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 1975 which is the first of the many appeals before us, arises out of a judgment dated Sept. 13, 1977 of a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. (Reported in AIR 1978 Punj & Har 1 (FB)) The appellant therein, Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Congress Ministry of the Government of Punjab. Grave allegations of political corruption were made against him and others whereupon, applications were filed in the High Court of Punjab were filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under S.438, praying that the appellants be directed to be released on bail, in the event of their arrest on the aforesaid charges. Considering the importance of the matter, a learned single Judge referred the applications to a Full Bench, which by its judgment dated Sept. 13, 1977 dismissed them. 4. The Cr. P.C. 1898 did not contain any specific provision corresponding to the present S. 438. Under the old Code, there was a sharp difference of opinion amongst the various High Courts on the question as to whether courts had the inherent power to pass an order of bail in anticipation of arrest, the preponderance of view being that it did. not have such power. The need for extensive amendments to the Cr. P.C. was felt for a long time and various suggestions were made in different quarters in order to make the Code more effective and comprehensive. The Law Commission of India, in its 41st Report dated Sept. 24, 1969 pointed out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code enabling the High Court and the Court of Session to grant "anticipatory bail".



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail It observed in para. 39.9 of its report (Vol. I): "39.9. The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as "anticipatory bail") was carefully considered by us. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a Court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. We recommend the acceptance of this suggestion. We are further of the view that this special power should be conferred only on the High Court and the Court of Session, and that the order should take effect at the time of arrest or thereafter. In order to settle the details of this suggestion, the following draft of a new section is placed for consideration: "497A. (1) When any person has a reasonable apprehension that he would be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section. That Court may, in its discretion, direct that in the event of his arrest, he shall be released on bail. (2) A Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence against that person shall, while taking steps under S. 204 (1), either issue summons or a bailable warrant as indicated in the direction of the Court under sub-sec. (1). (3) If any person in respect of whom such a direction is made is arrested without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station on an accusation of having committed that offence, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, such person shall be released on bail." We considered carefully the question of laying down in the statute certain conditions under which alone anticipatory bail could be granted. But we found that it may not be practicable to exhaustively enumerate those conditions; and moreover, the laying down of such conditions may be construed as prejudging (partially at any rate) the whole case. Hence we would leave it to the discretion of the court and prefer not to fetter such discretion in the statutory provision itself. Superior Courts will, undoubtedly, exercise their discretion properly, and not make any observations in the order granting anticipatory bail which will have a tendency to prejudice the fair trial of the accused." 5. The suggestion made by the Law Commission was, in principle, accepted by the Central Government which introduced cl. 447 in the Draft Bill of the Cr. P.C. 1970 with a view to conferring an express power on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail. That Clause read thus: "447. (1) When any person has reason to believe that he would be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail (2) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer-in-charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-sec. (1)" 6. The Law Commission, in para. 31 of its 48th Report (1972). made the following comments on the aforesaid Clause. "31. The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This is substantially in accordance with the recommendation made by the previous Commission. We agree that this would be a useful addition, though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised. We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners, the final order should be made only after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The initial order should only be an interim one. Further, the relevant section should make it clear that the direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded, and if the court is satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interests of justice. It will also be convenient to provide that notice of the interim order as well as of the final orders will be given to the Superintendent of Police forthwith." Clause 447 of the Draft Bill of 1970 was enacted with certain modifications and became S.438 of the Cr.P.C. 1973 which we have extracted at the outset of this judgment. 7. The facility which S. 438 affords is generally referred to as 'anticipatory bail' an expression which was used by the Law Commission in its 41st report. Neither the section nor its marginal note so describes it but, the expression 'anticipatory bail' is a convenient mode of conveying that it is possible to apply for bail in anticipation of arrest. Any order of bail can, of course, be effective only from the time of arrest because, to grant bail, as stated in Wharton's Law Lexicon, is to 'set at liberty a person arrested or imprisoned, on security being taken for his appearance'. Thus, bail is basically release from restraint, more particularly, release from the custody of the police. The act of arrest directly affects freedom of movement of the person arrested by the police, and speaking generally, an order of bail gives back to the accused that freedom on condition that he will appear to take his trial. Personal recognisance, suretyship bonds and such other modalities are the means by which an assurance is secured from the accused that though he has been released on bail, he will present himself at the trial of offence or offences of which he is charged and for which he was arrested. The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of he police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest. Police custody is an inevitable concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences. An order of anticipatory bail constitutes, so to say, an insurance against police custody following upon arrest for offence or offences in respect of which the order is issued. In other words, unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is threrafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. S. 46 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which deals with how arrests are to be made, provides that in making the arrest, the police officer or other person making the arrest" shall actually touch or confine the body of the person to be arrested, unless there be a submission to the custody by word or action". A direction under S. 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from this 'touch' or confinement. 8. No one can accuse the police of possessing a healing tough nor indeed does anyone have misgivings in regard to constraints consequent upon confinement in police custody. But, society has



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail come to accept and acquiesce in all that follows upon a police arrest with a certain amount of sangfroid, in so far as the ordinary rule of criminal investigation is concerned. It is the normal day-to-day business of the police to investigate into charges brought before them and, broadly and generally, they have nothing to gain, not favours at any rate, by subjecting ordinary criminals to needless harassment. But the crimes, the criminals and even the complainants can occasionally possess extraordinary features. When the even flow of life becomes turbid, the police can be called upon to inquire into charges arising out of political antagonism . The powerful processes of criminal law can then be perverted for achieving extraneous ends. Attendant upon such investigations, when the police are not free agents within their sphere of duty is a great amount of inconvenience, harassment and humiliation. That can even take the form of the parading of a respectable person in hand-cuffs, apparently on way to a court of justice. The foul deed is done when an adversary, is exposed to social ridicule and obloquy, no matter when and whether a conviction is secured or is at all possible. It is in order to meet such situations, though not limited to these contingencies, that the power to grant anticipatory bail was introduced into the Code of 1973. 9. Are we right in saying that the power conferred by S. 438 to grant anticipatory bail is "not limited to these contingencies"? In fact that is one of the main points of controversy between the parties. Whereas it is argued by Shri M. C. Bhandare. Shri. O. P. Sharma and the other learned counsel who appear for the appellants that the power to grant anticipatory bail ought to be left to the discretion of the court concerned, depending on the facts and circumstances of each particular case, it is argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the State Government that the grant of anticipatory bail should at least be conditional upon the applicant showing that he is likely to be arrested for an ulterior motive, that is to say, that the proposed charge or charges are evidently baseless and are actuated by mala fides. It is argued that anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy and therefore. Whenever it appears that the proposed accusations are prima facie plausible, the applicant should be left to the ordinary remedy of applying for bail under S. 437 or S. 439, Criminal Procedure Code, after he is arrested. 10. Shri V. M. Tarkunde, appearing on behalf of some of the appellants, while supporting the contentions of the other appellants, said that since the denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, courts should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of S. 438, when no such restrictions are imposed by the legislature in the terms of that Section. The learned counsel added a new dimension to the argument by invoking Art. 21 of the Constitution. He urged that S. 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of an individual who has not been convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail and who must therefore be presumed to be innocent. The validity of that section must accordingly be examined by the test of fairness and reasonableness which is implicit in Art. 21. If the legislature itself were to impose an unreasonable restriction on the grant of anticipatory bail, such a restriction could have been struck down as being violating of Art. 21. Therefore, while determining the scope of S. 438, the Court should not impose any unfair or unreasonable limitation on the individual's right to obtain an order of anticipatory bail. Imposition of an unfair or unreasonable limitation, according to the learned counsel, would be violative of Art. 21. irrespective of whether it is imposed by legislation or by judicial decision. 11. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected the appellant's application for bail after summarising, what according to it is the true legal position, thus : (1) The power under S. 438, Cr. P. C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only. (2) Neither S. 438 nor any other provision of the Code authorises the grant of blanket anticipatory bail for offence not yet committed or with regard to accusations not so far levelled:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail (3) The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding S. 437, are implicit therein and must be read into S. 438. (4) In addition to the limitations mentioned in S. 437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. (5) Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under S. 167 (2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under Section 27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under S. 438 should not be exercised. (6) The discretion under S. 438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. (7) The larger interest of the public ad State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under S. 438 of the Code should not be exercised; and (8) Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless. It was urged before the Full Bench that the appellants were men of substance and position who were hardly likely to abscond and would be prepared willingly to face trial. This argument was rejected with the observation that to accord differential treatment to the appellants on account of their status will amount to negation of the concept of equality before the law and that it could hardly be contended that every man of status, who was intended to be charged with serious crimes, including the one under S. 409 which was punishable with life imprisonment, "was entitled to knock at the door of the court for anticipatory bail". The possession of high status, according to the Full Bench, is not only an irrelevant consideration for granting anticipatory bail but is, if anything, an aggravating circumstance. 12. We find ourselves unable to accept, in their totality, the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General or the constraints which the Full Bench of the High Court has engrafted on the power conferred by S. 438. Cl. (1) of Section 438 is couched in terms, broad and unqualified. By any known canon of construction, words of width and amplitude ought not generally to be cut down so as to read into the language of the statute restraints and conditions which the legislature itself did not think it proper or necessary to impose. This is especially true when the statutory provision which falls for consideration is designed to secure a valuable right like the right to secure a valuable right like the right to personal freedom and involves the application of a presumption as salutary and deep-grained in our Criminal Jurisprudence as the presumption of innocence. Though the right to apply for anticipatory bail was conferred for the first time by S.438, while enacting that provision the legislature was not writing on a clean slate in the sense of taking an unprecedented step, in so far saw the right to apply for bail is concerned. It had before it two cognate provisions of the Code: S. 437 which deals with the power of courts other than the Court of Session and the High Court of grant bail in nonbailable cases and S. 439 which deals with the "special powers" of the High Court and the Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. The whole of Session regarding bail. The whole of Section 437 is riddled and hedged in by restrictions on the power of certain courts to grant bail. That section reads thus : 437. "When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence - (1) When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or appears or is brought before a Court other than the



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of a offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail: Provided further that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court. (2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry be released on bail. or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the execution by him or a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided. (3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chap. VI, Chap. XVI or Chap. XVII of the I.P.C. or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section(1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary(a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or (b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or (c) otherwise in the interests of justice. (4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-sec. (1) or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons for so doing. (5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-sec. (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person be arrested and commit him to custody. (6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs. (7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the execution by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered." Section 439 (1) (a) incorporates the conditions mentioned in S. 437 (3) if the offence in respect of which the bail is sought is of the nature specified in that sub-section. Section 439 reads thus:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 439. "Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail - (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in sub-sec. (3) of S. 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that sub-section; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing any person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody." The provisions of Ss. 437 and 439 furnished a convenient model for the legislature to copy while enaction S. 438. If it has not done so and has departed from a pattern which could easily be adopted with the necessary modifications, it would be wrong to refuse to give to the departure its full effect by assuming that it was not intended to serve any particular or specific purpose. The departure, in our opinion, was made advisedly and purposefully: Advisedly, at least in part, because of the 41st Report of the Law Commission which, while pointing out the necessity of introducing a provision in the Code enabling the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail, said in Para. 39.9 that it had "considered carefully the question of laying down in the statute certain conditions under which alone anticipatory bail could be granted but had come to the conclusion that the question of granting such bail should be left "to the discretion of the court" and ought not to be fettered by the statutory provision itself, since the discretion was being conferred upon superior courts which were expected to exercise it judicially. The legislature conferred a wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail because it evidently felt, firstly, that it would be difficult to enumerate the conditions under which anticipatory bail should or should not be granted and secondly, because the intention was to allow the higher courts in the echelon a somewhat free hand in the grant of relief in the nature of anticipatory bail. That is why, departing from the terms of Ss.437 and 439, S. 438 (1) uses the language that the High Court or the Court of Session "may, if it thinks fit" direct that the applicant be released on bail. Sub-section (2) of S. 438 is a further and clearer manifestation of the same legislative intent to confer a wide discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. It provides that the High Court or the Court of Session, while issuing a direction for the grant of anticipatory bail, "may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit", including the conditions which are set out in Cls. (i) to (iv) of sub-sec. (2). The proof of legislative intent can best be found in the language which the legislature uses. Ambiguities can undoubtedly be resolved by resort to extraneous aids but words, as wide and explicit as have been used in Section 438, must be given their full effect, especially when to refuse to do so will result in undue impairment of the freedom of the individual and the presumption of innocence. It has to be borne in mind that anticipatory bail is sought when there is a mere apprehension of arrest on the accusation that the applicant has committed a non-bailable offence. A person who has yet to lose his freedom by being arrested asks for freedom in the event of arrest. That is the stage at which it is imperative to protect his freedom, in so far as one may, and to give full play to the presumption that he is innocent. In fact, the stage at which anticipatory bail is generally sought brings about its striking dissimilarity with the situation in which a person who is arrested for the commission of a non-bailable offence asks for bail. In the latter situation, adequate data is available to the Court, or can be called for by it, in the light of which it can grant or refuse relief and while granting it, modify it by the imposing of all or any of the conditions mentioned in S. 437.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 13. This is not to say that anticipatory bail, if granted, must be granted, must be granted without the imposition of any conditions. That will be plainly contrary to the very terms of S. 438. Though subsec. (1) of that section says that the Court "may, if it thinks fit" issue the necessary direction for bail, sub-sec. (2) confers on the Court the power to include such conditions in he direction as it may think fit in the light of the facts of the particular case, including the conditions mentioned in Cls. (i) to (iv) of that sub-section. The controversy therefore is not whether the Court has the power to impose conditions while granting anticipatory bail. It clearly and expressly has that power. The true question is whether by a process of construction, the amplitude of judicial discretion which is given to the High Court and the Court of Session, to impose such conditions as they may think fit while granting anticipatory bail, should be cut down by reading into the statute conditions which are not to be found therein, like those evolved by the High Court or canvassed by the learned Additional Solicitor General. Our answer, clearly and emphatically, is in the negative. The High Court and the Court of Session to whom the application for anticipatory bail is made ought to be left free in the exercise of their judicial discretion to grant bail if they consider it fit so to do on the particular facts and circumstances of the case and on such conditions as the case may warrant. Similarly, they must be left free to refuse bail if the circumstances of the case so warrant, on considerations similar to those mentioned in S. 437 or which are generally considered to be relevant under S. 439 of the Code. 14. Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two cases are alike on facts and therefore, Courts have to be allowed a little free play in the joints if the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly, these are higher courts manned by experienced persons, secondly, their orders are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be excised by courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges. Judicial discretion has to be free enough to be able to take these possibilities in its stride and to meet these challenges. While dealing with the necessity for preserving judicial discretion unhampered by rules of general application, Earl Loreburn L.C. said in Hyman v. Rose, 1912 AC 623. "I desire in the first instance to point out that the discretion given by the section is very wide ........ Now it seems to me that when the Act is so express to provide a wide discretion ......... it is not advisable to lay down any rigid rules for guiding that discretion. I do not doubt that the rules enunciated by the Master of the Rolls in the present case are useful maxims in general, and that in general they reflect the point of view from which judges would regard an application for relief. But I think it ought to be distinctly understood that there may be cases in which any or all of them may be disregarded. If it were otherwise, the free discretion given by the statute would be fettered by limitations which have nowhere been enacted. It is one thing to decide what is the true meaning of the language contained in an Act of Parliament. It is quite a different thing to place conditions upon a free discretion entrusted by statute to the Court where the conditions are not based upon statutory enactment at all. It is not safe, I think, to say that the Court must and will always insist upon certain things when the Act does not require them, and the facts of some unforeseen case may make the Court wish it had kept a free hand." 15. Judges have to decide cases as they come before them, mindful of the need to keep passions and prejudices out of their decisions. And it will be strange if, by employing judicial artifices and techniques, we cut down the discretion so wisely conferred upon the Courts, by devising a formula which will confine the power to grant anticipatory bail within a strait-jacket. While laying down cast iron rules in a matter like granting anticipatory bail, as the High Court has done, it is apt to be overlooked that even Judges can have but an imperfect awareness of the needs of new situations. Life



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail is never static and every situation has to be assessed in the context of emerging concerns as and when it arises. Therefore. even if we were to frame a 'code for the grant of anticipatory bail'. which really is the business of the legislature, it can at best furnish broad guidelines and cannot compel blind adherence. In which case to grant bail and in which to refuse it is, in the very nature of things, a matter of discretion. But apart from the fact that the question is inherently of a kind which calls for the use of discretion from case to case, the legislature has, in terms express, relegated the decision of that question to the discretion of the court, by providing that it may grant bail "if it thinks fit". The concern of the courts generally is to preserve their discretion without meaning to abuse it. It will be strange if we exhibit concern to stultify the discretion conferred upon the Courts by law. 16. A close look at some of the rules in the eight-point code formulated by the High Court will show how difficult it is to apply them in practice. The seventh proposition says: "The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under S. 438 of the Code should not be exercised." 17. How can the Court, even if it had a third eye, assess the blatantness of corruption at the stage of anticipatory bail? And will it be correct to say that blatantness of the accusation will suffice for rejecting bail, even if the applicant's conduct is painted in colours too lurid to be true? The eighth proposition framed by the High Court says: Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The Court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless." Does this rule mean, and that is the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General, that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless it is alleged (and naturally, also shown, because mere allegation is never enough) that the proposed accusations are mala fide? It is understandable that if mala fides are shown, anticipatory bail should be granted in the generality of cases. But it is not easy to appreciate why an application for anticipatory bail must be rejected unless the accusation is shown to be mala fide. This, truly, is the risk involved in framing rules by judicial construction. Discretion, therefore, ought to be permitted to remain in the domain of discretion, to be exercised objectively and open to correction by the higher courts. The safety of discretionary power lies in this twin protection which provides a safeguard against its abuse. 18. According to the sixth proposition framed by the High Court, the discretion under S. 438 cannot be exercised in regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless, the court at the stage of granting anticipatory bail, is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless. Now. S. 438 confers on the High Court and the Court of Session the power to grant anticipatory bail if the applicant has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed "a non-bailable offence". We see no warrant for reading into this provision the conditions subject to which bail can be granted under S. 437 (1) of the Code. That section, while conferring the power to grant bail in cases of non-bailable offences, provides by way of an exception that a person accused or suspected of the commission of a non-bailable offence "shall not be so released" if there appears to be reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If it was intended that the exception contained in S. 437 91) should govern the grant of relief S. 438 (1), nothing would have been easier for the legislature than to introduce into the latter section a similar provision. We have already pointer out the basic distinction between these two sections. S. 437 applies only after a person, who is alleged to have committed a non-bailable offence, is arrested or detained without warrant or appears or is brought before a court. Section 438 applies before the arrest is made and, in fact, one of the pre-conditions of its application is that the person, who applies for relief under it. must be able to show that he has reason to believe that "he may be arrested", which plainly means that he is not yet arrested. The nexus which this distinction bears with



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail the grant or refusal of bail is that in cases falling under S. 437, there is some concrete data on the basis of which it is possible to show that there appear to be reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In cases falling under S. 438 that stage is still to arrive and, in the generality of cases thereunder, it would be premature and indeed difficult to predicate that there are or are not reasonable grounds for so believing. The foundation of the belief spoken of in S. 437 (1), by reason of which the court cannot release the applicant on bail is, normally, the credibility of the allegations contained in the First Information Report. In the majority of cases falling under S. 438, that data will be lacking for forming the requisite belief. If at all the conditions mentioned in S. 437 are to be read into the provisions of S. 438, the transplantation shall have to be done without amputation. That is to say, on the reasoning of the High Court, S. 438 (1) shall have to read as containing the clause that the applicant "shall not" be released on bail "if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life." In this process one shall have overlooked that whereas, the poser under S. 438 (1) can be exercised if the High Court or the Court of Session "thinks fit to do so, S. 437 (1) does not confer the power to grant bail in the same wide terms. The expression "if it thinks fit" which occurs in S. 438 (1) in relation to the power of the High Court or the Court of Session is conspicuously absent in Section 437(1). We see no valid reason for re-writing S. 438 with a view, not to expanding the scope and ambit of the discretion conferred on the High Court and the Court of Session but, for the purpose of limiting it. Accordingly, we are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in respect of offences like criminal breach of trust for the mere reason that the punishment provided therefor is imprisonment for life. Circumstances may broadly justify the grant of bail in such cases too, though of course, the Court is free to refuse anticipatory bail in any case if there is material before it justifying such refusal. 19. A great deal has been said by the High Court on the fifth proposition framed by it, according to which, inter alia, the power under S. 438 should not be exercised if the investigating agency can make a reasonable claim that it can secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under S. 27 of the Evidence Act. According to the High Court, it is the right and the duty of the police to investigate into offences brought to their notice and therefore, courts should be careful not to exercise their powers in a manner which is calculated to cause interference therewith. It is true that the functions of the Judiciary and the police are in a sense complementary and not overlapping. And, as observed by the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, 71 Ind App 203: (AIR 1945 PC 18): "Just as it is essential that every one accuse of a crime should have free access to a court of justice so that he may be duly acquitted if found not guilty of the offence with which he is charged, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province and into which the law imposes on them the duty of inquiry ..... The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping, and the combination of the individual liberty with a due observance of law and order is only to be obtained by leaving each to exercise its own function....". But, these remarks, may it be remembered, were made by the Privy Council while rejecting the view of the Lahore High Court that it had inherent jurisdiction under the old S. 561-A, Cr. P.C. to quash all proceedings taken by the police in pursuance of two F.I.Rs. made to them. An order quashing such proceedings puts an end to the proceedings with the inevitable result that all investigation into the accusation comes to a halt. Therefore, it was held that the Court cannot, in the exercise of its inherent powers, virtually direct that the police shall not investigate into the charges contained in the F.I.R. We are concerned here with a situation of an altogether different kind. An order of anticipatory bail does not in any way, directly or indirectly, take away from the police their right to investigate into charges made or to be made against the person released on bail. In fact, two of the e usual conditions incorporated in a direction issued under S. 438 (1) are those recommended in sub-sec. (2) (i) and (ii) which require the applicant to co-operate with the police and to assure that he shall not tamper with the witness during and after the investigation. While granting relief under S. 438 (1), appropriate



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail conditions can be imposed under S. 438 (2) so as to ensure an uninterrupted investigation. One of such conditions can even be that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under S. 27 of the Evidence Act, the person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Besides, if and when the occasion arises, it may be possible for the prosecution to claim the benefit of S. 27 of the Evidence Act in regard to a discovery of facts made in pursuance of information supplied by a person released on bail by invoking the principle stated by this Court in State of U. P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14 at p. 26: (AIR 1960 SC 1125) to the effect that when a person not in custody approaches a police officer investigating an offence and offers to give information leading to the discovery of a fact, having a bearing on the charge which may be made against him, he may appropriately be deemed to have surrendered himself to the police. The broad foundation of this rule is stated to be that S. 46 of the Cr. P. C. does not contemplate any formality before a person can be said to be taken in custody sub-mission to the custody by word or action by a person is sufficient. For similar reasons, we are unable to agree that anticipatory bail should be refused if a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under S. 167 (2) of the Code is made out by the investigating agency. 20. It is unnecessary to consider the third proposition of the High Court in any great details because we have already indicated that there is no justification for reading into S. 438 the limitations mentioned in S. 437. The High Court says that such limitations are implicit in S. 438 but, with respect, no such implications arise or can be read into that section. The plenitude of the section must be given its full play. 21. The High Court says in its fourth proposition that in addition to the limitations mentioned in S. 437, the petitioner must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. This, virtually, reduced the salutary power conferred by S. 438 to a dead letter. In its anxiety, otherwise just, to show that the power conferred by S. 438 is not "unguided or uncanalised", the High Court has subjected that power to a restraint which will have the effect of making the power utterly unguided. To say that the applicant must make out a "special case" for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail is really to say nothing. The applicant has undoubtedly to make out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail. But one cannot go further and say that he must make out a "special case." We do not see why the provisions of S. 438 should be suspected as containing something volatile or incendiary, which needs to be handled with the greatest care and caution imaginable. A wise exercise of judicial power inevitable takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. Every kind of judicial discretion, whatever may be the nature of the matter in regard to which it is required to be exercised, has to be used with due care and caution. In fact, an awareness of the context in which the discretion is required to be exercised and of the reasonable foreseeable consequences of its use, is the hall-mark of a prudent exercise of judicial discretion. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail. 22. By proposition No. 1 the High Court says that the power conferred by Section 438 is "of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only". It may perhaps be right to describe the power as of an extraordinary character because ordinarily the bail is applied for under S. 437 or Section 439. These Sections deal with the power to grant or refuse bail to a person who is in the custody of the police and that is the ordinary situation in which bail is generally applied for. But this does not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional cases only, because it is of an extraordinary character. We will really be saying once too often that all discretion has to be exercised with care and circumspection. depending on circumstances justifying its exercise. It is unnecessary to travel beyond it and subject the wide power conferred by the legislature to a rigorous code of self-imposed limitations. 23. It remains only to consider the second proposition formulated by the High Court, which is the only one with which we are disposed to agree but we will say more about it a little later.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 24. It will be appropriate at this stage to refer to a decision of this Court in Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977) 2 SCR 562 : (AIR 1977 SC 366) on which the High Court has leaned heavenly in formulating its propositions. One of us, Bhagwati J. who spoke for himself and A. C. Gupta, J. observed in that case that: "the power of granting 'anticipatory bail is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person might be falsely implicated, or a frivolous case might be launched against him, or "there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail" that such power is to be exercised." Fazal Ali, J. who delivered a separate judgment of concurrence also observed that: "an order for anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy available in special cases." and proceeded to say: "As S. 438 immediately follows S. 437 which is the main provision for bail in respect of nonbailable offences, it is manifest that the conditions imposed by S. 437 (1) are implicity contained in Section 438 of the Code. Otherwise the result would be that a person who is accused of murder can get away under S. 438 by obtaining an order for anticipatory bail without the necessity of proving that there were reasonable grounds for believing that he was not guilty of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Such a course would render the provisions of S. 437 nugatory and will give a free license to the accused persons charged with non-bailable offences to get easy bail by approaching the Court under S. 438 and by-passing S. 437 of the Code. This, we feel, could never have been the intention of the Legislature. Section 438 does not contain unguided or uncanalised powers to pass an order for anticipatory bail, but such an order being of an exceptional type can only be passed if, apart from the conditions mentioned in S. 437, there is a special case made out for passing, the order. The words "for a direction under this section" and "Court may, if it thinks fit, direct" clearly slow that the Court has to be guided by a large number of considerations including those mentioned in S. 437 of the Code." While stating his conclusion Fazal Ali, J. reiterated in conclusion No. 3 that "S. 438 of the Code is an extraordinary remedy and should be restorted to only in special cases." 25. We hold the decision in Balchand Jain (AIR 1977 SC 366) in great respect but it is necessary to remember that the question as regards the interpretation of Section 438 did not at all arise in that case. Fazal Ali, J. has stated in Para 3 of his judgment that "the only point" which arose for consideration before the Court was whether the provisions of Section 438 relating to anticipatory bail stand overruled and repealed by virtue of R. 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971 or whether both the provisions can. By the rule of harmonious interpretation, exist side by side. Bhagwati, J. has also stated in his judgment, after adverting to S. 438 that Rule 184 is what the Court was concerned with in the appeal. The observations made in Balchand Jain regarding the nature of the power conferred by S. 438 and regarding the question whether the conditions mentioned in S. 437 should be read into S. 438 cannot therefore be treated as conclusion the points which arise directly for our consideration. We agree, with respect, that the power conferred by S. 438 is of an extraordinary character in the sense indicated above, namely that it is not ordinarily resorted to like the power conferred by Ss. 437 and 439. We also agree that the power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with due care and circumspection but beyond that, it is not possible to agree with the observations made in Balchand Jain in an altogether different context on an altogether different point. 26. We find a great deal of substance in Mr. Tarkunde's submission that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the Court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail restrictions on the scope of S. 438, especially when no such restrictions have been imposed by the legislature in the terms of that section. S. 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with the personal liberty of the individual, who is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks bail. An over-generous infusion of constraints and conditions which are not to be found in S. 438 can make its provisions constitutionally vulnerable since the right to personal freedom cannot be made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. The beneficent provision contained in S. 438 must be saved, not jettisoned. No doubt can linger after the decision in Maneka Gandhi, (1978) 1 SCC 248 : (AIR 1978 SC 597) that in order to meet the challenge of Art. 21 of the Constitution, the procedure established by law for depriving a person of his liberty must be fair, just and reasonable. S. 438, in the form in which it is conceived by the legislature, is open to no exception on the ground that it prescribes a procedure which is unjust of unfair. We ought, at all costs, to avoid throwing it open to a Constitutional challenge by reading words in it which are not to be found therein. 27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is, however, interesting that as long back as in 1924 it was held by the High Court of Calcutta in Nagendra v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Cal 476. (479, 480) that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, that the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial and that it is indisputable that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. In two other cases which, significantly, are the 'Meerut Conspiracy cases observations are to be found regarding the right to bail which deserve a special mention. In K.N. Joglekar v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 504 (SB) it was observed, while dealing with S. 498 which corresponds to the present S. 439 of the Code, that it conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court wide powers to grant bail which were not handicapped by the restrictions in the preceding S. 497 which corresponds to the present S. 437. It was observed by the Court that there was no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by S. 498 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. In Emperor v. H. L. Hutchinson AIR 1931 All 356 at p. 358 it was said that it was very unwise to make an attempt to lay down any particular rules which bind the High Court, having regard to the fact that the legislature itself left the discretion of the Court unfettered. According to the High Court, the variety of cases that may arise from time to time cannot be safely classified and it is dangerous to make an attempt to classify the cases and to say that in particular classes a bail may be granted but not in other classes. It was observed that the principle to be deduced from the various sections in the Cr. P.C. was that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. An accused person who enjoys freedom is in a much better position to look after his case and to properly defend himself than if he were in custody. As a presumably innocent person he is therefore entitled to freedom and every opportunity to look after his own case. A presumably innocent person must have his freedom to enable him to establish his innocence. 28. Coming nearer home, it was observed by Krishna Iyer. J., in Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (1978) 1 SCC 240 : (AIR 1978 SC 429) that "the issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process. After all, personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law. The last four words of Art. 21 are the life of that human right." 29. In Gurcharan Sing v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 1 SCC 118 : (AIR 1978 SC 179) it was observed by Goswami, J., who spoke for the Court, that "there cannot be an inexorable formula in the matter of granting bail. The facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or cancelling bail". 30. In American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 8, page 806, para 39) it is stated:



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail "Where the granting of bail lies within the discretion of the court, the granting or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of the detention or imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to the jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the primary inquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end." It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as necessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail 31. In regard to anticipatory bail if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrest would generally be made. On the other hand, if it appears likely, considering the antecedents of the applicant, that taking advantage of the order of anticipatory bail he will flee from justice, such an order would not be made. But the converse of these propositions is not necessarily true. That is to say, it cannot be laid down as an inexorable rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides; and equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. There are several other considerations, too numerous to enumerate, the combined effect of which must weigh with the court while granting or rejecting anticipatory bail. The nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. The relevance of these considerations was pointed out in State v. Captain Jagjit Singh. (1962) 3 SCR 622 : (AIR 1962 SC 253) which, though, was a case under the old S. 498 which corresponds to the present S. 439 of the Code. It is of paramount consideration to remember that the freedom of the individual is as necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purposes of the individual. A person seeking anticipatory bail is still a free man entitled to the presumption of innocence. He is willing to submit to restraints on his freedom, by the acceptance of conditions which the court may think fit to impose, in consideration of the assurance that if arrested, he shall be enlarged on bail. 32. A word of caution may perhaps be necessary in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond. There can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it. In his charge to the grand jury at Salisbury Assizes, 1899 (to which Krishna Iyer, J. has referred in Gudikanti (AIR 1978 SC 429)), Lord Russell of Killowen said: "............... it was the duty of magistrates to admit accused persons to bail, wherever practicable, unless there were strong grounds for supposing that such persons would not appear to take their trial. It was not the poorer classes who did not appear for their circumstances were such as to tie them to the place where they carried on their work. They had not the golden wings with which to fly from justice." This, incidentally, will serve to show how no hard and fast rules can be laid down in discretionary matters like the grant or refusal of bail, whether anticipatory or otherwise. No such rules can be laid down for the simple reason that a circumstance which, in a given case, turns out to be conclusive, may have no more than ordinary signification in another case.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 33. We would, therefore, prefer to leave the High Court and the Court of Session to exercise their jurisdiction under S. 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion which by their long training and experience they are ideally suited to do. The ends of justice will be better served by trusting these courts to act objectively and in consonance with principles governing the grant of bail which are recognised over the years, than by divesting, them of their discretion which the legislature has conferred upon them, by laying down inflexible rules of general application. It is customary, almost chronic, to take a statute as one finds it on the ground that, after all. "the legislature in its wisdom" has thought it fit to use a particular expression. A convention may usefully grow whereby the High Court and the Court of Session may be trusted to excercise their discretionary powers in their wisdom, especially when the discretion is entrusted in their care by the legislature in its wisdom. if they err, they are liable to be corrected. 34. This should be the end of the matter, but it is necessary to clarify a few points which have given rise to certain misgivings. 35. Section 438 (1) of the Code lays down a condition which has to be satisfied before anticipatory bail can be granted. The applicant must show that he has "reason to believe' that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. The use of the expression "reason to believe" shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief', for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that 'some one is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the court objectively, because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested S. 438 (1), therefore, cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations, as if to arm oneself in perpetuity against a possible arrest. Otherwise the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as large as, at any rate, the adult populace. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individual's liberty; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations, likely or unlikely. Secondly, if an application for anticipatory bail is made to the High Court or the Court or the Court of Session it must apply its own mind to the question and decide whether a case has been made out for grant-in such relief. It cannot leave the question for the decision of the Magistrate concerned under S. 437 of the Code, as and when an occasion arises. Such a course will defeat the very object of Section 438. Thirdly, the filing of a First Information Report is not a condition precedent to the excercise of the power under S. 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an F. I. R. is not yet filed. Fourthly, anticipatory bail can be granted even after in F. I. R. is filed, so long as the applicant has not been arrested. Fifthly, the provisions of S. 438 cannot be invoked after the arrest of the accused. The grant of "anticipatory bail" to an accused who is under arrest involves a contradiction in terms, in so far as the offences for which he is arrested, are concerned. After arrest, the accused must seek his remedy under S. 437 or Section 439 of the Code, if he wants to be released on bail in respect of the offence or offences for which he is arrested. 36. We have said that there is one proposition formulated by the High Court with which we are inclined to agree. That is proposition No. (2). We agree that a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed. this flows from the very language of the section which, as discussed above, requires the applicant to show that he has "reason to believe" that he may be arrested. A belief can be said to be founded on reasonable grounds only if there is something tangible to go by on the



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail basis of which it can be said that the applicant's apprehension that he may be arrested is genuine. That is why, normally, a direction should not issue under S. 438 (1) to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail "whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever". That is what is meant by a 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail, an order which serves as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity, in fact any eventuality, likely or unlikely regarding which. no concrete information can possible be had. The rationale of a direction under Section 438(1) is the belief of the applicant founded on reasonable grounds that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. It is unrealistic to expect the applicant to draw up his application with the meticulousness of a pleading in a civil case and such is not requirement of the section. But specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of power conferred by the section. 37. Apart from the fact that the very language of the statute compels this construction, there is an important principle involved in the insistence that facts, on the basis of which a direction under S. 438 (1) is sought, must be clear and specific, not vague and general. It is only by the observance of that principle that a possible conflict between the right of an individual to his liberty and the right of the police to investigate into crimes reported to them can be avoided. A blanket order of anticipatory bail is bound to cause serious interference with both the right and the duty of the police in the matter of investigation because, regardless of what kind of offence is alleged to have been committed by the applicant and when, an order of bail which comprehends allegedly unlawful activity of any description whatsoever, will prevent the police from arresting the applicant even if he commits, say, a murder in the presence of the public. Such an order can then become a charter of lawlessness and a weapon to stifle prompt investigation into offences which could not possibly be predicated when the order was passed. Therefore, the court which grants anticipatory bail must take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective. The power should not be exercised in a vacuum. 38. There was some discussion before us on certain minor modalities regarding the passing of bail orders under S. 438 (1). Can an order of bail be passed under that section without notice to the public prosecutor ? It can be. But notice should issue to the public prosecutor or the Government Advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of the respective contentions of the parties. The ad interim order too must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage. Should the operation of an order passed under Section 438 (1) be limited in point of time? Not necessarily. The Court may, if there are reasons for doing so, limit the operation of the order to a short period until after the filing of an F.I.R. in respect of the matter covered by the order. The applicant may in such cases be directed to obtain an order of bail under S. 437 or 439 of the Code within a reasonably short period after the filing of the F.I.R. as aforesaid. But this need not be followed as an invariable rule. The normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. 39. During the last couple of years this Court, while dealing with appeals against orders passed by various High Courts, has granted anticipatory bail to many a person by imposing conditions set out in S. 438 (2) (i),(ii) and (iii). The Court has, in addition, directed in most of those cases that (a) the applicant should surrender himself to the police for a brief period if a discovery is to be made under S.27 of the Evidence Act or that he should be deemed to have surrendered himself if such a discovery is to be made. In certain exceptional cases, the Court has, in view of the material placed before it, directed that the order of anticipatory bail will remain in operation only for a week or so until after the filing of the F.I.R. in respect of matters covered by the order. These orders, on the whole, have worked satisfactorily, causing the least inconvenience to the individuals concerned and least interference with the investigational rights of the police. The Court has attempted through those orders to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the investigational rights of the police. The appellants who were refused anticipatory bail by various courts have long since been released by this Court under Section 438 (1) of the Code.



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments on Anticipatory Bail 40. The various Appeals and Special Leave Petitions before us will stand disposed of in terms of this judgment. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was treated as the main case under appeal, is substantially set aside as indicated during the course of this judgment. Order accordingly. ------



E Book of SUPREME COURT Landmark Judgments ON Anticipatory Bail “ Granted”

Recommend Documents