Brief Facts
- A FIR was lodged against the Appellant by his wife concerning the matrimonial discords between them.
- Apprehending arrest, the Appellant applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C before the Sessions Court but the application was dismissed. The Appellant then approached the High Court for anticipatory bail. During this period, the Appellant cooperated with the investigation, which culminated in the filing of a charge sheet before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Court took cognizance of the charges and noted that the High Court had issued an interim order protecting the Appellant from arrest.
- When the anticipatory bail application was heard again by the High Court on 18th January 2023, the court dismissed the application, directing the Appellant to surrender before the competent court to seek regular bail. The High Court emphasized the seriousness of the allegations and the need for the Appellant to follow proper legal procedures.
- Challenging the order of High Court, Appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking the anticipatory bail.
Issues
- What Factors are to be considered by courts Grant or Denial of anticipatory bail?
- Whether the High Court was correct in rejecting the Anticipatory Bail of the Appellant specifically in the case when the Appellant has extended complete cooperation in the investigation and during the pendency of the bail application, the charge sheet was filed before the Competent Court and even the cognizance was taken?
Held
- Anticipatory Bail was granted to the Appellant. The Court reiterated the principles enunciated in the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014 8 SCR 128 and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2020 2 SCR 1.
- This Court has emphasised the values of personal liberty in the context of applying discretion to grant bail. It has been ruled, in a long line of cases that ordinarily bail ought to be granted and that in serious cases — which are specified in the provisions of the CrPC (Section 437) which involve allegations relating to offences carrying long sentences or other special offences, the court should be circumspect and careful in exercising discretion. The paramount considerations in cases where bail or anticipatory bail is claimed are the nature and gravity of the offence, the propensity or ability of the accused to influence evidence during investigation or interfere with the trial process by threatening or otherwise trying to influence the witnesses; the likelihood of the accused to flee from justice and other such considerations. During the trial, the court is always in control of the proceedings, and it is open for it to impose any condition which it deems necessary to ensure the accused’s presence and participation in the trial. The court must, in every case, be guided by these overarching principles.
- Once the chargesheet was filed and there was no impediment, at least on the part of the accused, the court having regard to the nature of the offences, the allegations and the maximum sentence of the offences they were likely to carry, ought to have granted the bail as a matter of course.
- The High Courts and the Police Authorities in all States are required to comply with the above directions in the manner spelt out in the para above (Arnesh Kumar Case), within the time frame mentioned.
Relevant Paragraph
- 9, 12,13
