Welcome to Hindustan Times live updates platform. Follow all major news updates, headlines and breaking news stories from India and around the world right here. Track the real-time development of the main event.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a person in custody for one offense can still apply for anticipatory bail in connection with a separate offence, asserting that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be protected unless expressly prohibited by law.
The decision by a three-judge bench came in response to legal uncertainty over whether a person already incarcerated for one offense can be protected from arrest for another offence. The judgment sets a crucial precedent for cases where individuals, already in legal trouble, seek to protect their liberty against further arrests, emphasizing the role of the judiciary in upholding procedural fairness in every case of criminal proceedings.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Mishra said there was no "express or implied prohibition" in the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or any other law excluding the courts. . In such situations from the hearing of anticipatory bail applications dt.
In a detailed judgment, the court asserted that restricting a person's ability to seek anticipatory bail while in custody for another offense would be contrary to the purpose of Section 438 of the CrPC (now replaced by a similar provision under the Indian Civil Protection Code).
"No prohibition can be read into Section 438 of the CrPC to prevent an accused from applying for anticipatory bail in connection with an offence," the court said. Object of the provision and intention of the Legislature”.
The judgment written by Justice Pardiwala further pointed out that procedural fairness is essential to protect individual liberty. "The right of an accused to protect his personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India with the help of the provision of anticipatory bail... cannot be defeated or thwarted without due process established by law," it states. . . The bench emphasized that such a process should be fair, just and non-arbitrary in accordance with Article 14 (equality and equal protection) of the Constitution.
In separate recent judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated that bail is the rule and jail is the exception even in cases filed under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The Supreme Court has also warned subordinate courts to be cautious while staying bail orders.
The court was hearing an appeal against a 2023 judgment of the Bombay High Court which upheld the arrest of an accused in a fraud and forgery case despite being in custody in a money laundering case. .
The Supreme Court's 74-page judgment also strongly criticized the argument that once a person is in custody for one offence, he does not have to suffer the indignity of being arrested for another offence.
“Each arrest brings with it humiliation and humiliation...The initial arrest itself often brings a wave of social stigma and personal distress, as the individual struggles with the implications of their legal status. When subsequent arrests occur, it intensifies this emotional and social burden, widens the perception of their criminality and reinforces negative judgments from society,” it said.
The court also ruled to read any additional restrictions into Article 438 which provides for anticipatory bail. It noted that Parliament has clearly indicated when anticipatory bail can be prohibited, as under Section 438(4) of the CrPC, which applies to specific laws such as the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
"The court should not attempt to read any other restriction into the exercise of its power to entertain an application for anticipatory bail," the court said, warning against "judicial law" that may seek to impose such limitations without a legislative mandate.
The judgment also clarified procedural aspects related to custodial arrest. The court explained that a person can be arrested in connection with a new offense even if he is in custody for another offense, provided that proper legal procedures are followed, such as obtaining a Prisoner Transit Warrant (PT Warrant).
However, if an order of anticipatory bail is obtained for a subsequent offence, the investigating agency cannot seek remand of the accused for that offence. "If an order of anticipatory bail is obtained by the accused in connection with a subsequent offence, it shall not be open to the investigating agency to seek remand of the accused in connection with the subsequent offence," the court said.
Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 438 of the CrPC was introduced to protect individual liberty in a democratic society. "The motive behind inclusion of Section 438 in the CrPC was to recognize the importance of individual liberty and freedom in a free and democratic country," the bench said. It added that the provision is linked to the fundamental principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
No prohibition can be read into Section 438 of the CrPC to prevent an accused from applying for anticipatory bail
ReplyDelete