All bail applications depend upon the gravity of crime and presentation of Advocate. Anticipatory bail is granted only in special cases.
The petitioner can file a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court contending that the matters should be examined from the constitutional angle bearing in mind the scope of Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India. it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that though an accused person could be arrested it may not be appropriate to detain him in custody in every case and that when there is presumption of innocence in his favor until the charge against him is established, it would not at all be consistent with the philosophy of the Constitution to subject such a person to interrogation by application of psychological or ambient pressures much less physical torture. It was also contended that in law an accused person could be arrested and if arrested, he is entitled to bail unless detention is needed in public interest.
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 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, , 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 an necessary for the survival of the society as it is for the egoistic purpose 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".
In paragraph 21 of the same judgment, the Supreme Court has pointed out as follows:
"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 Section 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 and judicial power inevitably takes care of the evil consequences which are likely to flow out of its intemperate use. One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail."
You can add following points in ur application for grant of anticipatory bail:
The petitioner shall make any attempt to contact any of the prosecution witnesses, directly or through any person in any manner, including telephonic contacts, try to tamper with the evidence or influence any witnesses in this case,
The petitioner shall not have leave limits of local jurisdiction, without prior permission of the concerned Court
That the petitioner shall co-operate in early completion of the investigation and trial and shall attend whenever required by the investigating agency for that purpose.
The petitioner shall intimate place of his residence to the respondents and shall not change the same without prior intimation to the respondent about his intention to shift elsewhere
The petitioner is permitted to deposit cash amount what ever court found fit.
(Put additional points which u have mentioned above in ur petition about the respondent, I m sure it will work.)
