TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable unless the is in custody; (ii) whether an order extending anticipatory protection beyond the period fixed for moving the regular court can be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable unless the is in custody.
Analysis: Section 439 permits release on bail only of a person who is in custody. The expression 'custody' was applied in its legal sense as including physical detention, control of the court, or surrender to the court's jurisdiction. The distinction between anticipatory bail under Section 438 and regular bail under Section 439 was emphasized: the former operates in anticipation of arrest, while the latter operates after arrest or surrender. The earlier observations extending time to 'move' the higher court could not override the statutory custody requirement and were treated as not laying down the correct legal position.
Conclusion: An application under Section 439 is not maintainable unless the accused is in custody.
Issue (ii): Whether an order extending anticipatory protection beyond the period fixed for moving the regular court can be sustained.
Analysis: The protective order granted after expiry of the earlier limited period effectively enabled the accused to remain under anticipatory protection while seeking regular bail without first submitting to custody. That would dilute the statutory distinction between Sections 438 and 439 and render the custody requirement ineffective. The Court held that such extension of protection bypassed the mandate of Section 439 and could not stand.
Conclusion: The extended protective order was unsustainable and had to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The impugned protection was quashed to the extent it permitted the accused to pursue regular bail without surrendering to custody, and the matter was left to be dealt with by the High Court in accordance with law after such custody was secured.
Ratio Decidendi: A bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies only when the accused is in custody, and anticipatory bail cannot be extended so as to nullify that statutory requirement.
TaxTMI 
