Brief Facts
- The accused had filed an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest not at the behest of the prosecution but at the behest of the Trial Court at the stage of summons. Bail was rejected by the Sessions Court and the High Court, against which the SLP was filed. The accused had already joined the investigation and the CBI has not sought for the custody of the accused.
Issues
- Whether the accused are entitled for the benefit of anticipatory bail if they are apprehending arrest at the behest of the Trial Court, though the accused has not been arrested by the Investigation Agency during the course of investigation?
Held
- The Apex Court allowed the anticipatory bail considering the three factors i.e. (i) The CBI did not require the custodial interrogation during the period 29.06.2019 to 31.12.2021 (ii) the CBI has already clarified its stand that the presence of accused in not required for investigation and (iii) the case is based on documentary evidence.
- The appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in some parts of the country, there seems to be a practice followed by Courts to remand the accused to custody, the moment they appear in response to the summoning order. The correctness of such a practice has to be tested in an appropriate case. Suffice for the present to note that it is not the CBI which is seeking their custody, but the appellants apprehend that they may be remanded to custody by the Trial Court and this is why they seek protection. We must keep this in mind while deciding the fate of these appeals.
- In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to be released on bail, in the event of the Court choosing to remand them to custody, when they appear in response to the summoning order.
Relevant Para No.
- 9, 10, 12
