2003 (10) TMI 692 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - Offenses under Sections 504, 498A, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act - HELD THAT - From the perusal of this part of Section, 438 of the CrPC, we find no restriction in regard to exercise of this power in a suitable case either by the Court of Sessions, High Court or this Court even when cognizance is taken or charge sheet is filed. The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The fact, that a Court has either taken cognizance of the complaint or the investigating agency has filed a chargesheet, would not by itself, in our opinion, prevent the concerned courts from granting anticipatory bail in appropriate cases We respectfully agree with the observations of this Court in the said case that the duration of anticipatory bail should be normally limited till the trial court has the necessary material before it to pass such orders and it thinks fit on the material available before it. That is only a restriction in regard to blanket anticipatory bail for an unspecified period. This judgment in our opinion does not support the extreme argument addressed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-State that the courts specified in Section 438 of the CrPC are denuded of their power under the said Section where either the cognizance is taken by the concerned court or charge sheet is filed before the appropriate Court. As stated above this would only amount to defeat the very object for which Section 438 was introduced in the CrPC in the year 1973. As observed above and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the appellants in this case should be released on bail, in the event of their being arrested, on their furnishing a self bond each for a sum of ₹ 5,000/- and a surety to the like sum. The appellants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438 of the Code. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of granting anticipatory bail to a husband and wife accused of offenses under Sections 504, 498A, and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, after their application under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code was rejected by the High Court of Judicature at Patna.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Rejection of Anticipatory Bail Application
The appellants, husband and wife, sought anticipatory bail after being accused of various offenses. The High Court of Judicature at Patna rejected their application under Section 438 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and issued an interim order preventing the arrest of the appellants.

Issue 2: Legal Objection Raised
The respondent's counsel contended that anticipatory bail cannot be granted by the Supreme Court when the court of first instance has taken cognizance of the offense. Citing a previous judgment, the counsel argued that the appellants should surrender and then apply for regular bail under Section 439 of the CrPC.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Section 438 of the CrPC
The Supreme Court analyzed Section 438 of the CrPC, emphasizing that there is no restriction on the exercise of granting anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions, High Court, or Supreme Court even after cognizance is taken or a charge sheet is filed. The purpose of anticipatory bail is to prevent undue harassment of accused persons before trial.

Issue 4: Guidelines on Anticipatory Bail
Referring to a previous judgment, the Court highlighted that anticipatory bail orders should be of limited duration and that the regular court should ultimately decide on bail based on evidence presented after investigation progresses. The duration of anticipatory bail should be limited until the trial court has sufficient material to make a decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants, subject to conditions including furnishing a self-bond and a surety. The Court emphasized that the power to grant anticipatory bail should not be restricted by the mere taking of cognizance or filing of a charge sheet, as it would defeat the purpose of Section 438 of the CrPC introduced in 1973.