Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to be confined to a limited duration, and what factors govern the exercise of that power.
Analysis: The statutory power of anticipatory bail was held to be a discretionary safeguard for personal liberty, to be exercised on the facts of each case and in the light of the seriousness of the accusation, the applicant's antecedents, the likelihood of absconding, the possibility of misuse of liberty, and the need to ensure fair investigation. The Court held that no rigid or inflexible rule can be read into section 438 to confine the relief to a short period or to compel the accused to surrender and seek regular bail after a fixed time. The power must be balanced against societal interest, but it cannot be curtailed by judicially created restrictions not found in the statute or in the binding Constitution Bench decision in Sibbia.
Conclusion: The refusal to grant anticipatory bail was not sustained; the appellant was entitled to protection under section 438, with a direction to join and cooperate in investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 confers a wide discretionary power to protect personal liberty, and anticipatory bail, once granted, should ordinarily continue till trial unless cancelled on valid grounds; courts should not impose a fixed-duration limitation absent statutory warrant.