Thread by @barandbench

#Judgment #AnticipatoryBail #SupremeCourt

CJI NV Ramana: This judgment is regarding the frequent orders passed particularly by the UP courts relating to grant of anticipatory bail.

CJI Ramana: Here we have two cases where the Allahabad high court while dismissing the plea on merits granted 90 days time as protection. This was examined by us
#SupremeCourt

CJI: question before us was whether the high court while dismissing the anticipatory bail applications of the respondents has granted them protection from arrest.

#SupremeCourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: Section 438 Crpc has to be taken into consideration. The fact of the rejection of an application of Section 438 crpc has a direct bearing on the fundamental right to life and liberty of the individuals

#SupremeCourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: The provision, therefore, needs to be read liberally and considering its beneficial nature. The courts must not grant limitation or restriction which the legislature has not provided explicitly.

#supremecourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: Any activity must be read in light of the application seeking relief.

#supremecourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: Provision 438(1) CrPC is in line with the constitutional bench judgment of this court as the provision does not create any rights or restrictions.

#supremecourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: The whole purpose of this proviso appears to be clarificatory in nature, it only reinstates inter alia the obvious proposition that unless an individual has obstained protection from the court the police may not arrest him.

#supremecourt #anticipatorybail

CJI: In light of the ruling of Gurbaksh Singh, the provision cannot be read as a bar on the power of the court. Section 482 CrPC explicitly recognizes the high courts inherent powers to secure this aspect.

CJI: even when courts may not be inclined to grant anticipatory bail, there may be circumstances that person need to be protected from arrest till they surrender before the trial court. For eg: applicant needed protection here

CJI: Such recreational power cannot be exercised in an uncharted manner. Court must take into account the scheme of 438 crpc particularly 438(1) and balance it with the opinion of the IO and concerned applicant's interest. Such an order must be a reasoned one.