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 the appellants, who were facing prosecution for offences under the Penal Code, were entitled to anticipatory bail pending trial.
Analysis: The material placed before the Court showed conflicting versions from both sides, including documents said to support the prosecution case and documents relied upon by the defence. The Court held that the genuineness and correctness of such material could only be tested at trial and it would be unsafe to rely on any one document at the bail stage. The Court therefore confined itself to a prima facie assessment, declined to express any opinion on the merits, and considered whether protection from arrest was warranted. The Court also directed compliance with the statutory conditions governing anticipatory bail and imposed safeguards for investigation, including prior notice if the investigating agency required the appellants' presence, limitation on duration of questioning, and prohibition on custodial interrogation.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to anticipatory bail.
Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of anticipatory bail, the Court must make only a prima facie assessment and should not determine disputed factual issues that require a full trial; where such assessment justifies protection, anticipatory bail may be granted with appropriate statutory conditions.