Article 32 and anticipatory bail: custody under lawful process does not itself establish an Article 21 violation.

Article 32 petitions may be entertained on a prima facie claim of infringement or threat to Article 21, so maintainability was recognised despite the petitioners' custody. Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC was unavailable because that relief applies to apprehended arrest, whereas the petitioners were already in custody under production warrants issued by competent criminal courts. Custody pursuant to lawful process did not by itself establish an Article 21 violation. Requests for consolidation of criminal cases, transfer of investigation to the CBI, and exemption from personal appearance were also declined, as those matters lay with the appropriate criminal forum and did not warrant constitutional relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable on the plea of violation of Article 21; (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief in the nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (iii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to ancillary directions for consolidation of criminal proceedings, transfer of investigation to the CBI, or exemption from personal appearance.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable on the plea of violation of Article 21.

Analysis: A petition under Article 32 can be entertained where a prima facie infringement or threat to a fundamental right is shown. The petitions were therefore not non-maintainable merely because the relief sought was unusual or because the petitioners were in custody. However, maintainability stood apart from the question whether any enforceable violation of Article 21 was established on the facts.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to relief in the nature of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail is attracted only where there is an apprehension of arrest. The petitioners were already in custody in connection with multiple criminal cases and production warrants issued by competent courts. Their detention was held to be pursuant to procedure established by law, and the Court declined to treat the situation as a violation of Article 21. The earlier special orders granting similar relief were treated as fact-specific and not of general application.

Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to anticipatory bail relief.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to ancillary directions for consolidation of criminal proceedings, transfer of investigation to the CBI, or exemption from personal appearance.

Analysis: The Court held that consolidation of cases was a matter for the High Court in appropriate proceedings, that transfer to the CBI was not warranted, and that exemption from personal appearance lay within the discretion of the trial court. These requests did not justify the grant of relief under Article 32 in the present batch.

Conclusion: The ancillary prayers were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court upheld the maintainability of the writ jurisdiction but found no substantiated violation of Article 21 and no basis for granting the claimed bail-related or ancillary reliefs, with the result that the petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Custody pursuant to process issued by competent criminal courts and production warrants does not, by itself, establish an Article 21 violation, and anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a blanket constitutional remedy to persons already in custody.

---