What Is The Case
● The Supreme Court stated that a High Court can impose protection orders only in rare circumstances while dismissing anticipatory bail applications. The court, led by CJI Ramana, further stated that such orders should include an explanation of why such protection is being granted.
● After denying the motion for anticipatory bail, the High Court ordered the accused to appear before the Trial Court within 90 days to file a formal bail application, shielding them from any coercion at that time.
● The complainants challenged the order in the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 438, Cr.P.C. does not contemplate the grant of any such protection upon dismissal of an accused's application and that the proviso to Section 438(1), Cr.P.C. specifically provides for the arrest of the accused upon rejection of the relief sought in their application.
Detail
● The court stated that any interpretation of Section 438, Cr.P.C. must take into account the fact that the approval or denial of an application under Section 438, Cr.P.C. has a direct impact on an individual's fundamental right to life and liberty. The court made the following observations: The origins of this jurisdiction can be found in Article 21 of the Constitution, which serves as an effective means of protecting an individual's life and liberty.
● As a result, the provision must be construed liberally, and the courts must not read in limitations or restrictions that the legislature has not explicitly allowed for, given its helpful character. Any ambiguities in the text must be resolved in favour of the relief petitioner."
● After that, the court pointed out that Section 482, Cr.P.C. expressly recognises the High Court's inherent competence to grant relief to an applicant after dismissing their anticipatory bail motion.
● Taking note of the substance of the High Court order, the court made the following observations. First, after dismissing the anticipatory bail motion, the High Court gave the respondents the impugned relief without stating any reasons, based on the nature and gravity of the offence.
● Second, in granting relief for 90 days, the Court appears to have overlooked the concerns of the investigating agency, the complainant, or the proviso under Section 438(1), Cr.P.C., which requires the Court to issue an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest period of time that is reasonably required.
Court’s Observation
● "Even if the Court is hesitant to give anticipatory bail to an accused, there may be cases where the High Court believes that, due to exceptional circumstances, it is important to protect the person facing arrest for a period of time until they surrender before the Trial Court." For example, the applicant may request temporary protection because he or she is the principal caregiver or breadwinner for his or her family and wants to make preparations for them.
● It cannot be said that the High Court has no ability to ensure justice in such extreme circumstances when a strict case for anticipatory bail is not made out, and instead the investigating body has made out a case for custodial investigation. The bench, which also included Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, said, "It goes without saying that this Court may employ its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to give such an order."
● In the current facts and circumstances, a period of 90 days, or three months, can in no way be regarded as reasonable. As a result, the bench reversed the High Court's protective order for the accused.
What do you think about the case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
