In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court of India, the case involves the application for anticipatory bail in different cases. The appellant raised objections regarding the respondent already being in custody in connection with a specific case. The High Court’s decision on the matter has been put under scrutiny in this landmark judgment.
Facts
- Appellant raised an objection that Respondent is already in custody in connection with a specific case
- Respondent sought anticipatory bail in connection with a different case while in custody
- Objection of the Appellant was overruled by the High Court
- High Court held that being in custody in one case does not preclude seeking anticipatory bail in another case
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel
Arguments
- The appellant’s counsel argued that a person already in custody cannot have reasons to believe he would be arrested as he is already arrested.
- Counsel relied on various decisions to support the argument, including Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), and highlighted the pre-condition to invoke Section 438 of the CrPC.
- Key submissions made by the appellant included the High Court’s error in allowing pre-arrest bail for a person already in custody in a different case, emphasizing that the core aspect of arrest is placing the person’s body in police custody.
- The appellant argued that the protection of Section 438 of the CrPC is not meant for individuals already in custody to prevent the humiliation of arrest.
- Based on the merit of the appeal, the appellant requested the impugned order by the High Court to be set aside.
- Mr. Siddharth Dave, the learned Senior counsel for the original accused, opposed the appeal.
- He argued that the legal maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is a basic principle of jurisprudence.
- The appellant’s contention regarding anticipatory bail application not being maintainable was not agreed upon.
- Hardy, J.’s observations in the Mehar Chand case were cited by the learned Additional Solicitor-General in support of his argument.
- It was contended that an accused in custody in one case could be turned over to police custody for more serious offences even after the first fifteen days of custody.
- The above contention was opposed by Mr. Siddharth Dave.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Analysis
- An accused in custody in connection with one case can seek anticipatory bail in another case.
- Anticipatory bail will be effective only if the accused is arrested in connection with the subsequent case after being released from custody in the previous case.
- Investigating agencies can seek remand of the accused while in custody in connection with a previous case if no anticipatory bail order has been passed in relation to the subsequent case.
- The process of arrest involves actual touch or confinement of the person’s body, unless there is submission to custody by word or action.
- Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC can only be granted if there is a ‘reason to believe’ that the person may be arrested for a non-bailable offense.
- An application for anticipatory bail can be entertained even if the applicant is in custody for a different offense.
- The court may impose conditions for anticipatory bail, including making the person available for interrogation by police, not leaving the country without permission, and other relevant conditions.
- Notice of the interim and final orders regarding anticipatory bail should be given to the Superintendent of Police.
- The purpose of Section 438 of the CrPC is to protect an individual’s liberty and prevent arrest on frivolous grounds.
- The legislation behind Section 438 aims to safeguard personal liberty by presuming innocence until proven guilty.
- There is no provision in the Code that takes away the right of the accused to seek his liberty or of the investigating agency to investigate the case only because the accused is in custody in a different case.
- An accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail in connection with an offence so long as he is not arrested in relation to that offence.
- There is a marked difference between the two situations where a person can be arrested while in custody for another offence and the issuance of a formal arrest without physical custody change.
- The court should not read any blanket restriction nor insist on inflexible guidelines in the exercise of granting anticipatory bail.
- The High Court should not try to read any other restriction beyond what is prescribed in the provision.
- The purpose of anticipatory bail is to prevent litigation initiated to injure or humiliate the applicant and does not offer immunity from investigation.
- The right of an accused to seek anticipatory bail should not be curtailed based on being in custody related to a different offence.
- High Courts should apply their discretion in the matter of anticipatory bail rather than leaving it to the Magistrate.
- Section 438 creates a new right which should be applied considering the specific circumstances.
- Anticipatory bail can be granted as long as the applicant is not already arrested in connection with that case/offence.
- The decision in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) emphasized that the applicant must have a tangible reason to believe for anticipatory bail.
- The Constitution Bench highlighted that there must be an actual seizing or touching during arrest, or the individual must be made aware of the compulsion and submit to it before arrest is consummated.
- There is no statutory restriction for an accused in custody in one case to apply for anticipatory bail in a different case, as clarified by various High Courts.
- The right to access justice and protect personal liberty through the CrPC provisions must not be eliminated without due process, ensuring compliance with Article 21 and 14 of the Constitution.
- Anticipatory bail applications should be based on concrete facts and not vague or general allegations to be considered valid.
- Anticipatory bail application filed by an accused already in judicial custody in a different offense is maintainable under the CrPC.
- The scheme of the CrPC allows for such applications to be entertained.
- This decision was made in the context of the present case.
- Maintainability of anticipatory bail applications in such situations has been clarified in this judgement.
Also Read: Railway Compensation Case: Supreme Court Judgment
Decision
- Each application will be decided by competent courts on their merits
- The present appeal is dismissed
- The High Court of Judicature at Bombay will decide on the anticipatory bail application
- Pending applications will be disposed of
- Copy of judgment will be sent to all High Courts
Case Title: DHANRAJ ASWANI Vs. AMAR S. MULCHANDANI (2024 INSC 669)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002501-002501 – 2024
