The Court emphasized that when a person is already in custody for one case and subsequently faces arrest or remand in another case, the accused can only be remanded in connection with the subsequent case upon court orders. This remand does not equate to a fresh arrest but serves the purpose of facilitating further investigation. Consequently, if a remand order is granted, the accused can no longer seek anticipatory bail but may apply for regular bail.
![[S.438 Crpc] Orissa HC: Accused in Jail Can Seek Anticipatory Bail in Another Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.png?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
Orissa: The Orissa High Court has ruled that there is no bar preventing an accused individual already incarcerated in connection with one criminal case from seeking anticipatory bail in another case filed against them.
The Court emphasized that when a person is already in custody for one case and subsequently faces arrest or remand in another case, the accused can only be remanded in connection with the subsequent case upon court orders. This remand does not equate to a fresh arrest but serves the purpose of facilitating further investigation. Consequently, if a remand order is granted, the accused can no longer seek anticipatory bail but may apply for regular bail.
Justice Shashikant Mishra clarified
anticipatory bail, if granted, would only take effect if the accused is arrested in connection with a subsequent case after being released from custody in the previous case. The court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure does not deprive the accused of their right to seek liberty or impede the investigating agency’s ability to conduct inquiries simply because the accused is in custody for another case. The judgment, issued on April 10, stated that there is no statutory prohibition preventing an accused in custody from seeking anticipatory bail in another case.
In such circumstances, the accused can solely be remanded in connection with the subsequent case based on court directives, noted the judge.
“Can the act of remand in this context be likened to an arrest? … Given that the accused is already under arrest and in custody, remand can only be sought for investigative purposes, if necessary … Should such a remand order be issued, the accused would no longer have the option to seek anticipatory bail, but they could pursue regular bail,” clarified the Court.
The Court reiterated that the purpose of Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of the CrPC is to safeguard individuals from the humiliation and loss of dignity associated with arrest, particularly when false accusations are involved. The legislative intent behind this provision is to provide necessary protection to individuals facing potential arrest.
The Court affirmed that the rights bestowed upon both the accused and the investigating agencies are safeguarded autonomously in each distinct case.
“Since it’s impracticable to arrest an individual already in custody, it logically ensues that when, subsequent to release from custody in the prior case, the person is being sought for arrest in the new case, there’s no rationale for restraining them from preemptively approaching the Court to secure necessary protection through anticipatory bail, shielding themselves from such a scenario,” stated the Court.
If remand is granted in response to such a plea, the accused’s only recourse for release from detention is to file a regular bail application, noted the Court.
“The investigating agency, if deeming it necessary for interrogation or investigation, can request the remand of the accused while they are in custody in connection with the previous case. If such a plea is accepted, the accused can no longer seek anticipatory bail, as they would then be technically under custody in connection with the subsequent case as well. Consequently, they can only seek regular or custody bail,” explained the Court.
Additionally, the Court underscored that the legislative intent behind Section 438 (anticipatory bail) of the CrPC is to shield individuals from the humiliation and loss of dignity associated with arrest.
“This protection becomes even more essential when an individual faces false accusations,” the Court emphasized.
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The prosecution had not sought or obtained any court order for their remand, leading the Court to determine that their applications for anticipatory bail were maintainable and subsequently allowed.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sarangi & Ors v State & Anr
