Accused in custody in one case may apply for interim bail in another case: SC
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a suspect in custody in one case is entitled to interim bail in another case, as long as he has not been arrested in connection with the alleged offence.
The Supreme Court held that there is no express or implied restriction in the law prohibiting the trial court or the high courts from deciding an application for interim bail in a case while the applicant is in custody in connection with another offence.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said the purpose behind incorporating Section 438 in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the direction to grant bail to a person under arrest, was to recognise the importance of “personal liberty and independence in a free and democratic country”.
“An accused is entitled to anticipatory bail in connection with an offence so long as he has not been arrested in connection with that offence. Once he is arrested, the only remedy available to him is to file an application for regular bail either under Section 437 or Section 439 of the CrPC, as the case may be,” the bench, also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said.
“No restriction can be read into Section 438 of the CrPC which prevents an accused from filing an application for anticipatory bail in connection with an offence while he is in custody for another offence, as that would be contrary to the spirit of the provision and the intention of the legislature,” the report said.
The Supreme Court noted in its ruling that different views have been expressed on this issue by various high courts.
According to the court, the high courts of Rajasthan, Delhi and Allahabad have held that an application for interim bail cannot be entertained if the accused has already been arrested and is in custody in connection with an offence.
The court held that the Bombay and Orissa high courts have held that even if the accused was in custody in connection with one case, an application for interim bail on his behalf in connection with another case is admissible.
“We consider that it serves no meaningful purpose to deprive the defendant of the opportunity to exercise his statutory right to pretrial bail until he is released from prison for the first offence,” the report said.
Referring to the arguments advanced before the court, the court stated that it attaches force to the proposition that if the accused has not been able to obtain bail before his arrest in connection with another offence while he was in custody for an offence, he can be arrested by the police immediately after his release in the first case.
“This practical lapse in the approach of the Rajasthan High Court can be exploited by investigating agencies to compromise the personal liberty of the accused,” the court observed.
The Supreme Court held that if a person already in custody for one offence is arrested for another offence, the subsequent offence is in practice a separate offence.
“This would necessarily imply that all rights granted by law to the suspect and to the investigating authority in relation to the subsequent offence are protected independently of each other,” the report said.
The court stated that an investigating authority, if it deems it necessary for the purpose of interrogation/investigation into an offence, may request the remand of the suspect while he is in custody in connection with a previous offence, provided that no order has been issued for the grant of remand bail in respect of the subsequent offence.
It was also stated that if a warrant of remand is issued by the police before the suspect can get interim bail, he cannot thereafter apply for bail before his arrest. The only option open to him is to apply for regular bail.
The court agreed with the argument that the right of an accused to protect his personal liberty within the contours of Article 21 of the Constitution through the grant of provisional bail cannot be undermined or thwarted without a valid procedure established by law.
“Under Section 438 of the CrPC, the condition for a person to apply for pre-arrest bail is ‘reason to believe that he is liable to be arrested on a charge of having committed a non-bailable offence’. Therefore, the only condition for exercising the said right is the apprehension of the accused that he is likely to be arrested,” the report said.
The court held that detaining a person in one case does not have the effect of reversing the detention in another case.
“Every arrest a person suffers increases their humiliation and shame. We say this because each subsequent arrest underscores a continued or escalating involvement in legal problems that can undermine the person’s dignity and public standing,” the report said.
The court noted that each additional arrest increases the shame for the individual and the cumulative impact of such legal entanglements becomes increasingly devastating.
The appeal was against the October 2023 judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had held that an accused remanded in custody in one case would be entitled to an application for interim bail in another case.
In dismissing the appeal, the court said the registry of the top court would send a copy of its judgment to all high courts in the country.
(Only the headline and image of this report may have been edited by Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
First publication: 09 Sep 2024 | 23:06 IST