1985 (4) TMI 341 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Grant of anticipatory bail.
2. Cancellation of anticipatory bail.
3. Relevant considerations for anticipatory bail.

Summary:

1. Grant of Anticipatory Bail:
The respondent, Chandan Singh, was granted anticipatory bail by the Sessions Judge, Jodhpur, on September 30, 1983, despite being accused of murder u/s 302 IPC. The Sessions Judge observed that the dispute was related to the right to cultivate a field and granted bail on the condition that the respondent would assist in the investigation and not leave India.

2. Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail:
The appellant challenged the anticipatory bail in the High Court of Rajasthan, which was rejected. The High Court held that the respondent's influential status did not justify the cancellation of bail and emphasized that the primary considerations were the availability of the accused during the trial and the potential for tampering with witnesses.

3. Relevant Considerations for Anticipatory Bail:
The Supreme Court highlighted that the considerations for granting anticipatory bail u/s 438 CrPC are distinct from those for regular bail. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab, emphasizing that anticipatory bail is a pre-arrest legal process intended to provide conditional immunity from arrest. The Court noted that the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court had erred by not considering the seriousness of the charges and the context of the events.

Judgment:
The Supreme Court found that the anticipatory bail was granted without proper consideration of relevant factors, such as the nature of the accusation and the potential for the respondent to abscond or tamper with evidence. The Court emphasized that status and affluence are not relevant considerations for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the order granting anticipatory bail and canceled the bond furnished by the respondent. The Court clarified that the respondent could apply for regular bail if arrested, and such an application should be considered on its merits.