Anticipatory bail under Section 438 remains available for murder allegations, with time limits and later High Court filing permitted.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a distinct pre-arrest remedy, and the restrictions in section 437, including those relating to offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, do not control its scope. The provision may therefore be invoked even where arrest is apprehended on a murder allegation. The Court may also attach conditions to anticipatory bail and, in appropriate circumstances, limit the protection in point of time to balance liberty and investigation needs. A person whose application has been rejected by the Court of Session may still move the High Court under section 438, since the High Court and Sessions Court exercise concurrent jurisdiction and no statutory bar prevents such a subsequent application.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be granted even where the accusation is murder; (ii) whether an order granting anticipatory bail can be limited in point of time; and (iii) whether a petition under section 438 is maintainable before the High Court after rejection of a similar application by the Court of Session.

Issue (i): whether anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can be granted even where the accusation is murder.

Analysis: Section 438 confers a distinct pre-arrest power on the High Court and the Court of Session. The limitations found in section 437, including the restriction relating to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life, are not read into section 438. The larger Bench decision in Gurbaksh Singh governed the scope of the provision and the later order in Kiran Devi did not lay down a contrary rule. The Court therefore preferred the Constitution Bench view and rejected the contention that murder allegations bar anticipatory bail.

Conclusion: The Court held that anticipatory bail can be granted under section 438 even where the petitioner apprehends arrest on an allegation of murder.

Issue (ii): whether an order granting anticipatory bail can be limited in point of time.

Analysis: Section 438(2) permits the Court to impose conditions as it thinks fit. Gurbaksh Singh expressly recognised that, though the normal rule is not to confine the order to time, the Court may do so in appropriate cases. The Court held that such limitation may be imposed where the circumstances justify balancing personal liberty and the needs of investigation, and that a later application under sections 437 or 439 is maintainable because a person released pursuant to anticipatory bail can be treated as being in custody for that purpose.

Conclusion: The Court held that an order under section 438 can be limited in point of time.

Issue (iii): whether a petition under section 438 is maintainable before the High Court after rejection of a similar application by the Court of Session.

Analysis: Section 438 confers concurrent jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session, but unlike section 397 it contains no bar against approaching the higher forum after rejection by the subordinate forum. The Court held that a party may move the High Court after rejection by the Sessions Court, though not vice versa, because the High Court is superior in the judicial hierarchy.

Conclusion: The Court held that a petition under section 438 is maintainable before the High Court even after rejection by the Court of Session.

Final Conclusion: The Court answered all three referred questions in favour of the petitioner and granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including a time-bound liberty to seek regular bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a distinct pre-arrest remedy whose scope is not curtailed by section 437, and the High Court may impose appropriate conditions, including temporal limitation, while a petitioner may approach the High Court after rejection by the Sessions Court.

---