Anticipatory bail is a legal provision that allows a person to seek relief from arrest before being charged with a crime. It is granted by a court when the person has a reasonable apprehension of being arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. Anticipatory bail is a preventive measure to protect the liberty and dignity of the person, and to prevent misuse of the power of arrest by the police or other authorities.
In this blog post, we will look at 10 landmark judgements on anticipatory bail in India, and how they have shaped the law and practice of this provision.
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab (1980): This is the first and most important case on anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court laid down the guidelines and principles for granting anticipatory bail, and held that it is not an extraordinary remedy, but a part of the general law of bail. The court also held that anticipatory bail can be granted for any offence, except those punishable with death or life imprisonment, and that there is no need to show any special or exceptional circumstances for seeking it. The court also clarified that anticipatory bail does not mean blanket immunity from arrest, and that it can be cancelled or modified by the court at any stage.
2. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Maharashtra (2011): This case reaffirmed and expanded the scope of anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted even after an FIR is filed, or a charge sheet is submitted, or a trial is commenced, as long as the person has not been arrested. The court also held that anticipatory bail can be granted for a fixed period or till the end of the trial, depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. The court also emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be refused mechanically or arbitrarily, and that the courts should exercise their discretion liberally and humanely.
3. Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2020): This case settled the controversy over the duration and conditions of anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not be limited by any time frame, and that it should continue till the end of the trial, unless there are valid grounds for its cancellation or modification. The court also held that the courts can impose any conditions on anticipatory bail, as long as they are reasonable and necessary to secure the presence of the person, prevent tampering with evidence, or protect the interests of justice.
4. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs State of Maharashtra (2020): This case highlighted the importance of personal liberty and freedom of speech in relation to anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami, a journalist and TV anchor, who was arrested for allegedly abetting the suicide of an interior designer. The court observed that the arrest was prima facie illegal and malicious, and that it violated the fundamental rights of Goswami. The court also observed that the courts should be more vigilant and proactive in protecting personal liberty and free speech, especially in cases involving public figures and media persons.
5. Rhea Chakraborty vs State of Bihar (2020): This case dealt with the issue of jurisdiction and transfer of investigation in relation to anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court granted interim protection from arrest to Rhea Chakraborty, an actress, who was accused of abetting the suicide of her boyfriend and actor Sushant Singh Rajput. The court also transferred the investigation from Bihar Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as it found that there were multiple FIRs filed in different states on the same incident. The court also observed that Rhea Chakraborty had a right to fair investigation and trial, and that she could approach the Bombay High Court for regular anticipatory bail.
6. P Chidambaram vs Directorate of Enforcement (2019): This case dealt with the issue of economic offences and money laundering in relation to anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court denied anticipatory bail to P Chidambaram, a former finance minister, who was accused of involvement in a corruption case related to foreign investment approvals. The court held that economic offences are grave and serious offences that affect the national economy and public interest, and that they require a different approach while granting anticipatory bail. The court also held that money laundering is a standalone offence under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and that it cannot be treated as a mere consequence of another offence.
7. Sanjay Chandra vs Central Bureau of Investigation (2012): This case dealt with the issue of parity and discrimination in relation to anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court granted anticipatory bail to Sanjay Chandra, a businessman, who was accused of involvement in a scam related to allocation of 2G spectrum licenses. The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be denied to a person merely because other co-accused have been denied bail, or because the case involves public interest or national security. The court also held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted to a person merely because he belongs to a privileged or influential class, or because the case involves media attention or political pressure.
8. Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth vs State of Gujarat (2016): This case dealt with the issue of anticipatory bail and quashing of FIR in India. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail and quashing of FIR are two different and independent remedies available to a person, and that they can be sought simultaneously or separately. The court also held that the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail does not affect the power of the High Court to quash an FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and that the High Court can exercise its inherent power to quash an FIR if it finds that it is frivolous, vexatious, or without any basis.
9. Joginder Kumar vs State of UP (1994): This case dealt with the issue of arrest and custodial violence in relation to anticipatory bail in India. The Supreme Court held that arrest and detention of a person should not be done casually or mechanically, and that it should be done only when it is absolutely necessary for the investigation or prevention of crime. The court also held that the police should inform the person of his right to apply for anticipatory bail, and that they should not subject him to any torture or ill-treatment in custody. The court also issued guidelines and directions for the police and the courts to ensure the protection of human rights and personal liberty of the arrested person.
10. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (1996): This case dealt with the issue of anticipatory bail and interim bail in India. The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail and interim bail are two different concepts, and that they should not be confused with each other. The court also held that interim bail is a temporary relief granted by the court pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application, and that it can be cancelled or modified by the court at any time. The court also held that interim bail should not be granted as a matter of routine, and that it should be granted only in exceptional cases where there is a genuine urgency or hardship.
Comments
Post a Comment