Anticipatory Bail

From Lawnotes.in
Jump to: navigation, search

Anticipatory Bail is a type of bail taken in anticipation of an Arrest. i.e. It is a request made so as to not get arrested.

Related Cases / Recent Cases / Case Laws

  • Sudhir v The State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 1286-1287 OF 2015, Supreme Court of India judgement dated October 1, 2015
  • Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v State of Gujarat and Another, Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 1134-1135 OF 2015, Supreme Court of India judgement dated September 1, 2015
  • Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565: In the context of grant of Anticipatory bail, .. Generalisations on matters which rest on discretion and the attempt to discover formulae of universal application when facts are bound to differ from case to case frustrate the very purpose of conferring discretion. No two cases are alike on facts and therefore, courts have to be allowed a little free play in the joints if the conferment of discretionary power is to be meaningful. There is no risk involved in entrusting a wide discretion to the Court of Session and the High Court in granting anticipatory bail because, firstly, these are higher courts manned by experienced persons, secondly, their orders are not final but are open to appellate or revisional scrutiny and above all because, discretion has always to be exercised by courts judicially and not according to whim, caprice or fancy. On the other hand, there is a risk in foreclosing categories of cases in which anticipatory bail may be allowed because life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges ..
  • State of AP v Bimal Krishna Kundu and Another(1997) 8 SCC 104: Case relates to offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 406 IPC arisen out of leakage of question paper in respect of examination conducted by Public Service Commission, this Court has made following observations: - “12. We are strongly of the opinion that this is not a case for exercising the discretion under Section 438 in favour of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. It is disquieting that implications of arming the respondents, when they are pitted against this sort of allegations involving well-orchestrated conspiracy, with a pre-arrest bail order, though subject to some conditions, have not been taken into account by the learned Single Judge. We have absolutely no doubt that if the respondents are equipped with such an order before they are interrogated by the police it would greatly harm the investigation and would impede the prospects of unearthing all the ramifications involved in the conspiracy. Public interest also would suffer as a consequence. Having apprised himself of the nature and seriousness of the criminal conspiracy and the adverse impact of it on “the career of millions of students”, learned Single Judge should not have persuaded himself to exercise the discretion which Parliament had very thoughtfully conferred on the Sessions Judges and the High Courts through Section 438 of the Code, by favouring the respondents with such a pre-arrest bail order.”
  • Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694: (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;”
  • Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v State of Gujarat and Another 2015 (9) SCALE 403: Laying down the principles regarding cancellation of anticipatory bail in sub paras (vi) and (ix) of para 23, this Court has observed as under:
    • (vi) It is a settled legal position that the court which grants the bail also has the power to cancel it. The discretion of grant or cancellation of bail can be exercised either at the instance of the accused, the Public Prosecutor or the complainant, on finding new material or circumstances at any point of time.”
    • (ix) No inflexible guidelines or straitjacket formula can be provided for grant or refusal of anticipatory bail because all circumstances and situations of future cannot be clearly visualized for the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail. In consonance with legislative intention, the grant or refusal of anticipatory bail should necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
  • State of Telangana v Habib Abdullah Jeelani and Others, Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction, Criminal Appeal No. 1144 OF 2016, Supreme Court of India judgment dated January 6, 2017