Supreme Court restricts High Court’s power to grant protection after rejecting anticipatory bail in criminal cases (28 May 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 28 May 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 350

Judges: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a High Court provide protection from arrest to an accused person after denying their request for anticipatory bail? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the extent of the High Court’s powers in such matters. This case arose from two separate criminal appeals where the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had granted temporary protection from arrest to the accused, even after rejecting their anticipatory bail applications.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose, delivered a unanimous judgment. The lead opinion was authored by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana.

Case Background

The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from two separate incidents.

In the first case, the appellant, Nathu Singh’s daughter was married to respondent no. 2 on 14th February 2014. She died under suspicious circumstances on 2nd January 2021, at her matrimonial home. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the respondents (nos. 2 to 5) under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In the second case, the appellant, Ompal Singh’s brother and his two sons were attacked by the respondents due to a land encroachment dispute. The two sons sustained severe injuries, with one suffering a skull fracture and falling into a coma for a week. The other son had lacerations on his head. An FIR was registered against the respondents under Sections 307, 504, and 34 of the IPC.

In both cases, the accused sought anticipatory bail from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The High Court dismissed their applications but granted them 90 days to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail, while also providing protection from coercive action during this period. The complainants, aggrieved by this protection, filed appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents in both cases sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad during the ongoing investigations. The High Court, while dismissing their anticipatory bail applications, granted them 90 days to surrender before the Trial Court to seek regular bail and also granted them protection from coercive action for the said period.

The High Court orders, dated 08.02.2021 and 28.01.2021, stated that while there were no exceptional grounds to grant anticipatory bail, the accused were given 90 days to surrender and apply for regular bail. During this period, no coercive action was to be taken against them.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.

Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“Where 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 that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter alia, the following factors, namely:—
(i) the nature and gravity of the accusation;
(ii) the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice; and
(iv) where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant,
either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer incharge of a police station to arrest, without warrant, the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.”

Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. outlines the conditions that can be imposed when granting anticipatory bail.

Section 438(3) of the Cr.P.C. specifies the procedure to be followed if the person is arrested after the grant of anticipatory bail.

The proviso to Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. states that if the High Court or Court of Session rejects the anticipatory bail application, the police are free to arrest the applicant without a warrant.

Additionally, Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. recognizes the High Court’s inherent power to pass orders to secure the ends of justice.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that once the High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, it could not grant any further protection to the accused.
• They contended that Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. does not allow for any protection after the rejection of an anticipatory bail application.
• The proviso to Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. specifically allows for the arrest of the accused upon rejection of their application.
• The High Court’s orders have hampered the ongoing investigation by preventing custodial interrogation of the accused, despite the serious nature of the offenses.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court has the power to pass such orders in the interest of justice.
• They justified the discretion exercised by the High Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The sole issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the High Court, while dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of the respondents, could have granted them protection from arrest.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the interpretation of Section 438, Cr.P.C. and the scope of anticipatory bail:

• Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India) – This case clarified that anticipatory bail is not limited to a fixed period and can continue till the end of the trial, but special conditions can be imposed.
• Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 (Supreme Court of India) – This case emphasized that Section 438, Cr.P.C. should be interpreted liberally, and unnecessary restrictions should not be imposed.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – This section deals with the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) – This section recognizes the High Court’s inherent powers to pass orders to secure the ends of justice.

Table of Authorities and their Treatment:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION] to clarify that while anticipatory bail can be granted for the duration of the trial, special conditions, including limiting the relief to a certain period, can be imposed. This case was used to highlight that the High Court could have granted anticipatory bail for a limited period if it had assigned reasons for doing so, but it could not grant protection after rejecting the bail application.
• The Supreme Court followed Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to emphasize the need for a liberal interpretation of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., and that any ambiguity in the language must be resolved in favor of the applicant seeking relief. It was held that the proviso to Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. does not create any rights or restrictions, and it cannot be read as a bar on the power of the Court.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to balance individual liberty with the requirements of effective investigation and the statutory scheme of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that while the High Court has inherent powers to secure justice, such powers must be exercised judiciously. The Court was concerned that the High Court’s order effectively granted protection to the accused for a significant period without proper justification, thereby impeding the investigation process. The Court also stressed the importance of following the statutory framework of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., which does not provide for granting protection after rejecting anticipatory bail, and that the proviso to Section 438(1) Cr.P.C. allows for the arrest of the accused upon rejection of their application.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was predominantly based on legal considerations (80%), focusing on the interpretation of Section 438 and 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the principles of anticipatory bail. The factual aspects of the case, such as the nature of the offenses, played a secondary role (20%) in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them. The Court acknowledged the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., but held that such powers must be exercised judiciously and in line with the statutory scheme. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s order effectively granted protection to the accused for a significant period without proper justification, thereby impeding the investigation process.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order was not legally sound. The Court stated that while the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., such powers must be exercised judiciously and in line with the statutory scheme of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court found that the High Court did not provide reasons for granting protection for 90 days, and it did not consider the concerns of the investigating agency or the proviso under Section 438(1) Cr.P.C.

The Court stated:

“The impugned orders passed by the High Court, in the present appeals, do not meet any of the standards as laid out above. We say so for the following reasons: firstly, after the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application, on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence, the High Court has granted the impugned relief to the respondents without assigning any reasons.”

“Secondly, in granting the relief for a period of 90 days, the Court has seemingly not considered the concerns of the investigating agency, complainant or the proviso under Section 438(1), Cr.P.C., which necessitates that the Court pass such an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest duration that is reasonably required.”

“We are thus of the view that the High Court committed a grave error in passing such protection to the respondents-accused. Such a direction by the High Court exceeds its judicial discretion and amounts to judicial largesse, which the Courts do not possess.”

The Court unanimously set aside the High Court’s orders to the extent of granting protection for 90 days to the respondents.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot grant protection from arrest to an accused after rejecting their anticipatory bail application, except in extraordinary circumstances and for a very limited time.
• Any discretionary protection order must be narrowly tailored, reasoned, and consider the concerns of the investigating agency, complainant, and society.
• The proviso to Section 438(1) of the Cr.P.C. allows the police to arrest an accused without a warrant if their anticipatory bail application is rejected.
• High Courts must exercise their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. judiciously, and in line with the statutory scheme.
• This judgment reinforces the importance of balancing individual liberty with the need for effective investigation and the rule of law.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Investigating Agency to proceed with the matters in accordance with law and complete the investigation. If the respondents had been sent to judicial custody, their applications for regular bail or any request for police remand by the Investigating Officer should be decided by the competent court, uninfluenced by the observations made in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

No specific amendments were discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while High Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to pass orders to secure the ends of justice, they cannot grant protection from arrest to an accused after rejecting their anticipatory bail application, except in extraordinary circumstances and for a very limited time. This judgment clarifies the limits of the High Court’s powers in such matters and reinforces the statutory scheme of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. It also emphasizes the need for reasoned orders and the balance between individual liberty and the requirements of effective investigation. This ruling has not changed the previous position of law but has clarified the scope of existing powers and limitations.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court held that the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad erred in granting protection from arrest to the accused after rejecting their anticipatory bail applications. The Supreme Court clarified that while High Courts possess inherent powers, they cannot grant such protection in a routine manner. The judgment emphasizes the need for reasoned orders and the importance of balancing individual liberty with the requirements of effective investigation. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders to the extent of granting protection for 90 days, allowing the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law.