Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. the State of Punjab (1980)
The Hon’ble Apex court laid down the following guidelines:
- The power under S.438,Cr.P.Code,is of an extra-ordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.
- Neither S.438 nor any other provision of the Code authorises the grant of blanket anticipatory bail for offences not yet committed or with regard to accusations not so far levelled.
- In addition to the limitations mentioned in S.437, the petitioner must make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.
- Where a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under S.167(2) can be made out by the investigating agency or a reasonable claim to secure incriminating material from information likely to be received from the offender under S.27 of the Evidence Act can be made out, the power under S.438 should not be exercised.
- The discretion under S.438 cannot be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the Court at that very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless.
- The larger interest of the public and State demand that in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption at the higher rungs of the executive and political power, the discretion under S.438 of the Code should not be exercised.
- Mere general allegations of mala fides in the petition are inadequate. The court must be satisfied on materials before it that the allegations of mala fides are substantial and the accusation appears to be false and groundless.
Rahna Jalal v. the State of Kerala (2020)
It was held that the writ court is empowered to grant anticipatory bail irrespective of the statutory bar imposed against the grant of such relief.
Amiya Kumar Sen v. the State of West Bengal (1979)
The Apex Court clearly mentioned that both the Sessions and High Court are empowered to issue anticipatory bail to a person. The judgement stated that if the sessions Court denies bail, the same petition can’t be tried in the high Court. The party can appeal to the High Court but it is at the discretion of the Court whether to entertain the petition or not.
Savitri Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra and Another (2009)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that reasonable condition should be imposed as mentioned in section 438 (2) of the Code.The Court in this case gave a guideline to the lower Courts that the reason to believe should satisfy the requirement of anticipatory bail and it should be granted only after clear examination of facts of the case.
Vaman Narayan Ghiya v. State of Rajasthan (2009)
The Hon’ble court stated that Normally a direction should not be issued to the effect that the applicant shall be released on bail whenever arrested for whichever offence whatsoever. Such blanket order should not be passed as it would serve as a blanket to cover or protect any and every kind of allegedly unlawful activity. An order under S.438 is a device to secure the individual’s liberty.It is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusations likely or unlikely.The Court, while rejecting the bail, mentioned that the reason to believe must satisfy the Court and direct it towards the actual requirement of the anticipatory bail. The reason to believe the requirement of bail must depend on the facts and circumstances and not just fear and suspicion. The accused should present reasonable facts that might help the Court analyse the importance of anticipatory bail in such cases.
State of MP v. Rama Krishna Balothia and Anr. (1995)
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgement answered the question of anticipatory bail as a fundamental right of a person when several persons filed applications for anticipatory bail as they were suspected to be arrested under SCST Atrocities Act stating that anticipatory bail is a fundamental right of a person.The Court in its judgement stated that getting an anticipatory bail should not be considered a fundamental right as it is merely a special privilege granted when it is duly necessary and the Courts should not entertain any such bail applications which are contrary to the necessary conditions. The Court also mentioned that personal liberty is granted under Article 21, but not all applications are necessarily made for the protection of personal liberty.
Sushila Aggarwal and Others v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)
Five judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the protection granted under S. 438 cannot be limited to a fixed period of time and should be in favour of the accused without any restrictions on time. Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438 (2) should be imposed. At the same time, it was also recognised that it is always open to the court to impose conditions owing to circumstances which are peculiar in nature. However, it must be noted that the need to impose restrictive conditions would have to be judged on a case to case basis, depending upon the materials produced by the state or the investigating agency.
Also held that the life or duration of anticipatory bail order does not normally end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when the charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial. It further added that if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the Court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open to do so. Thus, this means that any limitations or conditions which are not specifically mentioned in the statute are completely at the broad discretion of the court issuing the said order.
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011)
The apex court held that no restrictive condition can be imposed while passing an order under S.438 of the Code.
M. C. Abraham and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others (2002)
The High Court rejected the bail application and issued arrest against him. The applicant appealed to the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court delivering its verdict mentioned that rejection of bail doesn’t mean that the applicant should necessarily be arrested. He may or may not be arrested based on the case and should not be based on the grant/rejection of bail.
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat (2015)
In this case the lower court rejected the application of bail without any proper justification. The Court stated that rejection of anticipatory bail, when all the conditions are satisfied, without any proper justification by the Court may be said as the violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the person can appeal to the High Court immediately.
State (Rep by C.B.I) v. Anil Sharma (1997)
The Court rejected the bail stating that in sensitive matters such as corruption, the Court should carefully examine the position of the applicant, and if he is at a high position, he can trouble the investigation agency by undue influence. So, in such matters the bail should be prima facie rejected.
State of Maharashtra v. Vishwas (1978)
The Court in its judgement mentioned that a Court can recall or cancel bail as and when it deems necessary. Anticipatory bail is a special privilege for a man and it should not be misused at any chance. The power of cancellation of bail lies with the Court even though there is no express provision as such.