Analysis on Anticipatory Bail
INTRODUCTION
In many cases, the Supreme Court has stressed the importance of following due process for arrests. The law governing bails and anticipatory bail are all about equalizing; on the one hand, there is the presumption of innocence, the right to liberty, and so on; on the other hand, there is the public good, and it is up to the courts to connect the two. As a result, the factual matrix of each case is critical in determining whether bail should be granted or whether an anticipatory bail application should be filed.. In the case of Kamlapati v. State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court defined bail as a technique developed to achieve a fusion of two fundamental notions of human value, namely, the right of an accused to experience his individual liberty and the people’s interest, where an individual’s release is predisposed on the surety’s promise to produce the accused in court to stand trial. In the case of Balchand Jain vs State of MP, the Supreme Court stated, “Anticipatory bail means bail in anticipation of arrest.“
No provision in the Cr.P.C. 1898 is there that could provide for anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail was given in some cases by the High Courts’ prerogative jurisdiction, despite the dominant read ruling that such authority did not exist. In its 41st Report, the Law Commission advocated for including a clause in the Code that allows the High Courts and the Court of Session to give “anticipatory bail.” In a Constitutional Bench decision in the case of Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, Constitution Bench of five judges emphasized that anticipatory bail enshrined in Section 438 of the Cr. P.C is conceptualized under Article 21 of the Constitution, which deals with individual freedom, and thus such a provision requires a broad interpretation of Section 438 Cr. P.C in light of Article 21 of the Constitution. In Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court overturned its previous judgement and placed that “granting of anticipatory bail should be limited by time.” Finally, in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court established clear guidelines for granting anticipatory bail.
SCOPE OF ANTICIPATORY BAIL
Bail is regarded as a right of the accused in bailable offences, while bail is regarded as the discretion of the Judge governing the implementation of bail in non-bailable offences. Anticipatory bail is now granted in advance of an arrest. Anticipatory bail guarantees freedom until the court settles the regular bail application. This means that if an individual has a reasonable belief that police will arrest him for a non-bailable offence, he can apply for bail ahead of time of his arrest in an appropriate court; it is called anticipatory bail. If the person’s request is granted, he must display the court’s order concerning anticipatory bail whenever the police arrive to arrest him; upon providing the order, the person will be released on bail. Every individual suspected of a crime or involved in a non-bailable felony or offence has the option of anticipatory bail.
After evaluating the different factors, the court of sessions or the high court (both of which have equal powers) can award anticipatory bail:
- The seriousness of the accusations
- The accused’s history of applying for anticipatory bail
- Possibilities of eluding justice
- Possibility of him threatening witness testimony and evidence tampering.
- If there is any possibility of a malicious prosecution
If a person has indeed been inflated on Anticipatory Bail, if he is apprehended, the Officer-in-Charge will discharge him immediately, and if the court must issue warrants, it will be a bailable warrant only in the first place. While only the Court of Session and the High Court have the authority to grant Anticipatory Bail, if acknowledged by the Supreme Court, a Special Leave Petition against the High Court’s order can be filed. A party may apply straight to the High Court or appeal to the High Court after a Session Court dismisses an Anticipatory Bail plea.
The Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal vs. State of NCT of Delhi, stating that usually no deadline can be set when giving anticipatory bail and that it can last until the case’s conclusion. A five-judge bench ruled that any court that seeks to restrict bail can do so by attaching special conditions to it. There must be no general principle; instead, it should be entirely up to the court’s discretion.
ANALYSIS
The goal of anticipatory bail is to safeguard the appellant’s life and liberty from unnecessary pain and defamation due to baseless and fraudulent charges and arrests. This type of bail allows a person to approach a court of law with a reasonable belief of apprehension to defend his fundamental right to life and liberty.
Anticipatory bail comes in handy when opposing parties in the country’s political system try to falsely accuse the opposition of being motivated solely by a desire to vote. Anticipatory bail necessitates a thorough examination. The distinguished judges of the High Court and Session Courts issue anticipatory bail applications only after a thorough review and consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring that the terms of anticipatory bail are not being abused.
The notice to the Public Prosecutor must also ensure that the opposite side is given a chance to speak in the case and that it is not decided ex parte. Even if the applicant is not present, anticipatory bail can be granted. It is only when the public prosecutor requests to the court for the applicant’s appearance that he is required to appear. The court can apply restrictions and conditions while issuing anticipatory bail, ensuring that the appellant is monitored and controlled by the officials to guarantee that the privilege is not abused and that the criminal justice system is upheld.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the various judicial decrees of the Supreme court, it is fair to conclude, in my view, there is no such strict rule in the award of anticipatory bail. In actuality, the court governing the anticipatory bail plea has authority. The court must adhere to the essential canon of criminal jurisprudence that every person is deemed innocent until proven guilty. The ruling body has granted the judiciary broad discretion in anticipatory bail, recognizing that the judiciary must implement it based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The basic logic for anticipatory bail ensures that a person’s freedom is not harmed needlessly and that public trust in the justice system is retained. For several years, anticipatory bail has been regarded as a protection for an individual who was falsely accused or charged against him or her, most probably due to enmity, so it guarantees that if an individual is falsely accused, he or she will be released as a result of this provision. The judiciary should use their authority smartly and in ways that are fair and equal, preserving natural justice guidelines in mind.