Latest News
Back
Document:
"Personal security and private property rests entirely upon the wisdom , the stability and the integrity of courts of Justice" quoted Justice S Ravindra Bhat
By referring to the suppression of revolt and groundless arrests of revolters in the British India , Justice S Ravidra bhat has opined his view that though many law commision reports, have asked for restricting the time period of anticpatory bail , Parliament has yet not created any such rule as it does not consider restricting the dicretion of courts in granting the anticipatory bail. He further says that " its not the restrictions that are fundamental but the rights which the citixens cherish deeply are". Therfore , making it pretty obvious that his opinion is against the restriction of time period of anticipatory bail and mentions about the prevelent phenomenon of groundless arrests. He further also mentioned about the suppression of people who were trying to exercise their rights during revolts against Rowlatt Act and after JalliawalaBagh Massacre in the past.
Thus the question placed before the 5 judge bench of Justice MR Shah , Justice S Ravindra Bhat, Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice Arun Mishra and Justice Vineet Saran were of the nature to which each judge penned their separate decision which wholely or partially agreed to each other's point. The questions were as followed;
1)Whether, To enable a person to surrender himself and seek for regular bail the protection granted to a person from the provisions of Anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPc should be limited to fix period?
Answering to the issue raised , the bench of SC court opined that it wholely depends upon the upon the situation and peculiar or special circumstances of the facts if any as the time period for anticpatory bail can not be restricted and it completely depends on the discretion of the court in this matter. Also , court mentioned that normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed .
2) Whether the life of Anticipatory Bill should end with the time of summon of accused by the court ?
Answering to the second issue raised in this case SC bench clarified that no it can continue till the end of the trial as it does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.
Court also referred to the precedents of SC in this case which is Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and ors. vs. Stae of Punjab in which it was held clearly that if a person seeking anticipatory bail approaches to court , the application should contain bare essential elements of the facts and certain reasons of his apprehension of arrest also the seriousness. Also, it was held that application should not move to the court only after the FIR is filed it can be filed previous to it too if the reason and apprehension of arrest is clear.
Thus the bench penned down its judgement that dictum given in cases like Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State of Mharashtra and ors (and other similar cases in which it was held that no restrictive conditions at all can be imposed while granting anticipatory bail are hereby overruled.
Document:
