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 an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable when the accused has been summoned to appear and no warrant of arrest has been issued.
Analysis: Section 438 is framed in broad terms and turns on whether the person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of a non-bailable offence. The provision does not confine the apprehension of arrest to cases where a warrant has already been issued, and its language does not justify importing a restriction that would deny relief merely because the Court has chosen to issue summons. The legislative background shows that the provision was enacted to protect personal liberty and to prevent unnecessary detention where arrest is reasonably apprehended. The continued existence of an accusation and the possibility of arrest at the instance of the police or the Court are sufficient to attract the jurisdiction under the section.
Conclusion: An application for anticipatory bail remains maintainable even where summons only have been issued, and the issue is answered in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 depends on a reasonable apprehension of arrest on a non-bailable accusation, and is not excluded merely because the accused has been summoned instead of being arrested under a warrant.