Introduction

• This case is the landmark case on the anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which says “When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail”
• If there is anticipation of arrest then the person can apply for bail, but in this case the scope of the power of grant anticipatory bail was concerned.

Facts

• The main appeals before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 13^th September 1977.
• This judgment dismissed the applications for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 of the CrPC by several individuals, including Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia who was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Congress government in Punjab.
• Grave allegations of political corruption were made against Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others.
  • In response, they filed applications in the High Court under Section 438, praying that they be released on bail if they were arrested on these charges.
• Given the importance of the matter, a single judge referred the applications to a Full Bench of the High Court.
  • The Full Bench dismissed the applications and laid down eight propositions placing stringent limitations and conditions on the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438.
• Some of the key propositions laid down by the High Court were:
  • The power under Section 438 is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.
  • Blanket orders of anticipatory bail should not be passed.
  • The limitations contained in Section 437 regarding bail must be read into Section 438.
  • The applicant must make out a "special case" beyond the requirements of Section 437.
  • Anticipatory bail should not be granted if it may cause interference with the investigative rights of the police.
  • For offences punishable with death/life imprisonment, anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless it appears false or groundless.
• The High Court rejected the appellants' argument that as persons of status, they were unlikely to abscond and should get anticipatory bail. It held that high status is an aggravating factor against grant of such bail.
• Aggrieved by this judgment, the appellants filed appeals challenging the restrictive interpretations given by the High Court's Full Bench on the scope of Section 438's provisions regarding anticipatory bail.

Issues Involved

• Whether the discretion provided to the High Court or Session Court under section 438 of the CrPC to impose conditions while granting the anticipatory bail should be cut down by reading into statute which are not to be sound therein?
• Whether the conditions provided under section 437 are implicit therein must be read with Section 438 of the CrPC?
• Whether the discretion under Section 438 is an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only?

Observations

• The Supreme Court held that the Punjab and Haryana High Court erred in putting strict limitations and conditions on granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 that are not present in the statutory language itself.
  • Section 438 uses wide language and confers a wide discretion on High Courts and Courts of Session to grant anticipatory bail. This discretion should not be curtailed by reading stringent conditions into the provision.
• The Court rejected the High Court's propositions like, the power under Section 438 must be exercised only in exceptional cases, the limitations from Section 437 should be read into 438, the applicant must make out a "special case", etc.
• It held that no inflexible rules can be laid down to limit judicial discretion under Section 438. The courts must exercise this discretion judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case.
  • Anticipatory bail is a vital instrument to secure personal freedom and the statutory provision conferring this must receive liberal interpretation in favor of personal freedom.
• However, the Court agreed with the High Court's proposition that blanket orders of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed, as the belief of being arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds in relation to a specific accusation.
• The Court provided guidance on aspects like whether FIR is required before seeking anticipatory bail, bail after arrest, time limits for orders, notice to public prosecutor etc.

Conclusion

• Overall, the Supreme Court overruled the stringent propositions laid down by the High Court's Full Bench judgment and provided a more liberal framework for courts to exercise discretion in granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC.