Courts should grant protection from arrest only in exceptional circumstances while rejecting anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday ruled that though Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure on grant of anticipatory bail by High Court or Sessions Court should be read liberally, courts should not normally grant protection from arrest limited to a particular time period in cases where no ground for anticipatory bail is made out. .A Bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana noted that courts are granting protection from arrest to accused for a long period like 90 days though no case for anticipatory bail is made out. Such a power can be used only in exceptional circumstances. "The Court must take into account the statutory scheme under Section 438, CrPC, particularly, the proviso to Section 438(1), CrPC, and balance the concerns of the investigating agency, complainant and the society at large with the concerns/interest of the applicant. Therefore, such an order must necessarily be narrowly tailored to protect the interests of the applicant while taking into consideration the concerns of the investigating authority. Such an order must be a reasoned one," the Court noted. However, such discretionary power cannot be exercised in an untrammeled manner, the Court underscored. .Hence, the Court set aside two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court, which had while dismissing the anticipatory bail application of the respondents-accused, granted them 90 days to surrender before the trial court to seek regular bail. .The Court gave the following reasons for setting aside the orders passed by Allahabad High Court:- After the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application on the basis of the nature and gravity of the offence, the High Court has granted relief to the respondents without assigning any reasons;- In granting the relief for a period of 90 days, the High Court has not considered the concerns of the investigating agency, complainant or the proviso under Section 438(1), CrPC, which necessitates that the Court pass such an exceptional discretionary protection order for the shortest duration that is reasonably required;- A period of 90 days, or three months, cannot in any way be considered to be a reasonable one in the present facts and circumstances..[Read Judgment]