Today(9th September), The Supreme Court of India ruled that an accused already in custody can still seek anticipatory bail in a separate case if not arrested for that specific matter. The verdict, delivered by a Bench including CJI DY Chandrachud, clarifies the right to pre-arrest bail despite existing judicial custody.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(9th September), the Supreme Court of India held that an accused individual, already in custody in a particular case, can still seek anticipatory bail in another matter if they haven’t been arrested in that specific case. This landmark judgment emphasizes the right of an accused to protection from arrest, even while being held for a different offense.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, delivered the verdict, which addressed a crucial legal question—whether an accused in judicial custody for one crime is entitled to apply for pre-arrest bail in a separate criminal case.
While delivering the judgment, Justice JB Pardiwala, speaking on behalf of the Bench, clarified that –
“an accused is entitled to seek anticipatory bail so long as he is not arrested in relation to that offence.”
He further added that –
“if he is also arrested in that case, then his only remedy is to apply for regular bail.”
This clarification was made in response to a petition filed by Dhanraj Aswani in 2023, raising questions about the legality of seeking anticipatory bail while being in custody for a different offense.
The Court noted that there is no legal restriction, either explicitly or implicitly, preventing the sessions court or the High Court from granting anticipatory bail to someone already detained for another matter.
As noted in the verdict-
“There is no explicit or implicit restriction preventing a sessions or high court from granting anticipatory bail to an accused who is in custody for a different offence. Denying such relief would go against the legislature’s intent…”
The Bench further elaborated on the issue, stating that-
“Custody in one case does not affect the apprehension of arrest in another case.”
This ruling clarifies that just because a person is already in custody does not mean that the fear of arrest in another case automatically dissipates.
This decision stemmed from a case involving a criminal complaint against an individual that was initially quashed but later revived when the accused was arrested in a separate matter. The accused then approached the Bombay High Court seeking anticipatory bail, and the High Court, on October 31, 2022, ruled that the petition was maintainable.
ALSO READ: “Excessive Bail is No Bail”: Supreme Court
The appellant, representing the informant, challenged this decision, arguing that anticipatory bail can only be sought when there is a genuine fear of arrest.
The counsel pointed out that –
“A case for anticipatory bail arises when there is a genuine apprehension of arrest, and not as a matter of right.”
However, the counsel representing the accused contended that the apprehension of arrest should not be deemed unfounded based on the discretion of the investigating officer. They argued that the right to seek anticipatory bail should remain intact as long as the individual has not been formally arrested for the new offense.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court sided with the accused, upholding the right to seek anticipatory bail even while under custody for another crime. The Court observed that such procedural matters should adhere to the principles of the right to life, liberty, and a fair trial.
The Supreme Court’s decision is particularly important as it highlights that every criminal offense must be considered independently, regardless of the accused’s custody status in another case.
The Court emphasized that –
“All rights conferred on the accused regarding a new offence are independent of the previous offence for which he is in custody.”
This ruling provides a broader interpretation of the anticipatory bail provisions under Indian law, ensuring that the accused’s right to a fair trial and protection from arbitrary arrest is upheld.
It was clearly stated that –
“If anticipatory bail is granted for a subsequent offence while he is in custody, the police cannot arrest him for that offence.”
The Court dismissed the appellant’s arguments, noting that the accused still retains the right to seek legal protection from arrest in a separate case, even while under detention.
As the judgment pointed out-
“Custody in one case does not diminish the right to seek protection from arrest in another case.”
During the proceedings, Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, along with Advocates Prashant S. Kenjale, Amol Nirmalkumar Suryawanshi, Srishty Pandey, Ashutosh Chaturvedi, Gayatri Virmani, and Shubham Gavande of Juristrust Law Offices, appeared on behalf of the informant-appellant.
Representing the accused were Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, assisted by Advocates Vidhi Thaker, Shantanu Phanse, Sudhanva Bedekar, Prastut Dalvi, and Siddhant Sharma.
