Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The Respondent No.1 thereupon filed an application in the Madras High Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of Anticipatory Bail and the learned Single Judge of the said High Court, by his order dated 3rd July, 2006, allowed the same upon holding that since the investigating agency had already seized all relevant and vital documents and had recorded the statements of all the important witnesses, the custodial interrogation of the Respondent No.1 was not required.

12. Appearing for the Respondent No.1, Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned Senior Advocate, submitted that except for wild allegations made against the Respondent No.1, nothing incriminating had been found against him. Mr. Dutta urged that the Respondent No.1 had been granted Anticipatory Bail as far back as on 3rd July, 2006, and he had never misused the privilege and had co-operated with the investigating agencies all through. Furthermore, the trial had already commenced and several witnesses had been examined and there could, therefore, be no justification for cancelling the Anticipatory Bail granted to him by the High Court more than three years ago. Referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565], wherein the application of Section 438 Cr.P.C. had been considered in detail, Mr. Dutta submitted that the said provision had been interpreted to be a beneficent provision relating to personal liberty guaranteed under Section 21 of the Constitution. Mr. Dutta submitted that the Constitution Bench had observed that since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, the court should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

14. Having carefully considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions referred to in support of their respective cases, we are of the view that the role of the Respondent No.1 in the entire episode did not entitle him to the relief of Anticipatory Bail, much less a blanket order of bail. However, that is now a closed chapter. But what is of relevance is whether the High Court should have worded its order in such a way that it could be interpreted to mean, as has been done by all concerned, that the Respondent No.1 was not required to even appear and surrender before the Court during the entire investigation stage and the trial. Taking advantage of the same, the Respondent No.1 has successfully avoided the Court from the very initial stage of investigation and even the trial. Such kind of an order is not contemplated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as has been repeatedly explained by this Court. The said position has been clearly enunciated in Adri Dharan Das's case (supra). Furthermore, it has also been consistently indicated that no blanket order could be passed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to prevent the accused from being arrested at all in connection with the case. To avoid such an eventuality it was observed in Adri Dharan Das's case (supra) that Anticipatory Bail is given for a limited duration to enable the accused to surrender and to obtain regular bail. The same view was reiterated in Salauddin's case (supra) wherein it was, inter alia, observed that Anticipatory Bail should be of limited duration only and primarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration, the Court granting Anticipatory Bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted.

15. The object of Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been repeatedly explained by this Court and the High Courts to mean that a person should not be harassed or humiliated in order to satisfy the grudge or personal vendetta of the complainant. But at the same time the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. cannot also be invoked to exempt the accused from surrendering to the Court after the investigation is complete and if charge-sheet is filed against him. Such an interpretation would amount to violence to the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C., since even though a charge-sheet may be filed against an accused and charge is framed against him, he may still not appear before the Court at all even during the trial. Section 438 Cr.P.C. contemplates arrest at the stage of investigation and provides a mechanism for an accused to be released on bail should he be arrested during the period of investigation. Once the investigation makes out a case against him and he is included as an accused in the charge- sheet, the accused has to surrender to the custody of the Court and pray for regular bail. On the strength of an order granting Anticipatory Bail, an accused against whom charge has been framed, cannot avoid appearing before the trial court. If what has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the Respondent No.1 has never appeared before the trial court is to be accepted, it will lead to the absurd situation that charge was framed against the accused in his absence, which would defeat the very purpose of Sub-Section (2) of Section 240 Cr.P.C.