Anticipatory Bail Research Work With Case Laws

Anticipatory Bail Research work with case laws
Introduction
Bail means temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, sometimes
on condition that a sum of money is lodged to guarantee their appearance in
court. In other words release or secure the release of a prisoner on payment
of bail. It may be defined as Security. Bail is money or some property that is
deposited or pledged to a court, in order to secure the release from custody
or jail of a suspect who has been arrested, with the understanding that the
suspect will return for their trial and required court appearances. The
concept of bail flows from the right to liberty which is sanctified as one of
the fundamental rights in the Constitution of India in Article 211 and its
practice prescribed in Article22(2) as a working theorem and its corollaries
in the provisions of Sections 436, 437 and 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 with a new multiple of Anticipatory Bail thrown in to be
resolved into infinite kindly factors by the developed minds of judges
imagining what the true state of facts would have been to balance for the
time being the agonies of the supposed wrong-doer and the wronged.
Definition
Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code deals with the Anticipatory Bail.
This provision allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of an arrest on
accusation of non-bail able offence having committed by him. It is a
direction to release a person on bail, issued even before the person is
arrested. In general words, it is a direction to release a person on bail, issued
even before the person is arrested. If the accused has a reason to believe that
he or she may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bail able
offence then he or she has the right to apply for an anticipatory bail in the
Sessions Court or High Court.
In case of “Balchand Jain V. State of M.P.,” the court has defined
anticipatory bail as ‘bail in anticipation of arrest’. Anticipatory bail is a
direction to release a person on bail, issued even before the person is
arrested. An explanation of Anticipatory bail is given by the Supreme Court
in the case of “Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v The State of Punjab” that under
sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code, the Court must be satisfied that
the applicant invoking the provision has reason to believe that he is likely to
be arrested for a non-bailable offence and that belief 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 vague
apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him, in
pursuance of which he may be arrested.
RECENT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON LAW OF

ANTICIPATORY BAIL
1. Sushila Agarwal v. State of Delhi
The Hon'ble court was pleased to frame 2 questions while deciding the landmark
judgment:
1. Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 of Cr.PC should
be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the trial
court and seek regular bail.
2. Whether life of anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the
accused is summoned to court.
The Constitutional Bench of the apex court was pleased to answer the first question
by holding that there can be no time limit set for the Anticipatory Bail by the court
granting the same. The five-judge bench was pleased to unanimously hold that "
the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably
be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favor of the accused without any
restriction on time." Answering the second question the Hon'ble court held that
"The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time
and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are
framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. Again, if there are any special or
peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is
open for it to do so. Not granting Anticipatory bail may cause violation of
fundamental rights of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India
2. Rajesh Kumar & Others v. Sate of U.P. (2017 SCC Online SC 821)
Facts
In the present case, the husband, along with other relatives, was accused for
causing cruelty to the wife in lieu of demand for dowry. However, the other
relatives demanded that there should be certain guidelines to prevent over-
implication. Thus, in most of the cases the relatives of the husband are also being
dragged into Courts in cases of Section 498A. However, it is not necessary that
they have been party to the offence. Thus, a question with respect to the need for
directions to prevent misuse of Section 498A, IPC was raised in the appeal.
Decision
The Supreme Court laid down comprehensive directions to prevent the misuse of
the provision of Section 498A, IPC.
By: Yashi
([email protected])

Anticipatory Bail Research Work With Case Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anticipatory Bail Research Work With Case Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anticipatory Bail Research Work With Case Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anticipatory Bail Research work with case laws

RECENT LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON LAW OF

You might also like