Anticipatory bail remains available despite custody in another case where arrest apprehension in the later matter is real.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure remains available even if the applicant is already in custody in another case, because the provision contains no express or implied bar beyond the limitation in Section 438(4). The Court explained that anticipatory bail protects personal liberty against unjustified arrest, and custody in one matter does not eliminate a real and objective apprehension of arrest in a different matter. It also noted that investigation may continue and remand may be sought before anticipatory bail is granted, but that right is curtailed once protection is granted in the subsequent case.

---

---

Issues: Whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable when the is already in custody in another case; and whether such custody destroys the applicant's "reason to believe" that he may be arrested in the subsequent case.

Analysis: The Court traced the evolution and purpose of anticipatory bail and held that Section 438 confers a statutory protection intended to safeguard personal liberty against unjustified arrest. The provision contains no express or implied bar excluding a person already in custody in one case from seeking protection in another case. The only textual restriction is the one expressly enacted in Section 438(4), and the Court declined to read any further blanket limitation into the statute. It held that a person in custody in one matter may still have a real and objective apprehension of arrest in a different matter, because formal arrest in the subsequent case remains legally possible, including through the procedure of production and remand. The Court also held that the investigating agency's power to proceed with investigation is not defeated, since it may seek remand before anticipatory bail is granted, but once anticipatory bail is granted in the subsequent case, the right to seek remand for that purpose is curtailed.

Conclusion: Anticipatory bail was held to be maintainable even where the applicant is already in custody in another case, and the objection to maintainability was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory remedy under Section 438 remains available in a different case notwithstanding custody in another case, subject to the ordinary requirements and limits governing anticipatory bail.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be read as barring anticipatory bail merely because the applicant is already in custody in another case; the relevant inquiry is whether the applicant has a real apprehension of arrest in the subsequent case.

---