Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980

By

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 case summary

Introduction 

A very interesting case, where the Court discussed Anticipatory bail which is enshrined in Chapter XXXIII, Section 438 of CRPC, 1973 (Provision of Anticipatory Bail is given under Section 482, Bhartiye Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023)

Facts

  1. This appeal was raised by Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, who was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Government of Punjab and allegedly committed various political Corruption, against the judgement of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court which rejected the anticipatory bail application made under S.438.
  2. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court formulated eight-point rules to be considered while granting anticipatory bail. These are-
    1. The power under S.438 is extraordinary and shall be used sparingly in exceptional cases only.
    2. It shall not be granted as a blanket for offences not yet committed or without any accusations made.
    3. All the conditions provided under S.437 are implicitly included in S.438.
    4. The petitioner must also have to make out a special case.
    5. No bail shall be granted if the investigative agency claims to obtain incriminating material from the offender.
    6. No bail shall be granted in case of offences punishable with a death sentence or imprisonment for life, unless on satisfaction of the false accusation.
    7. No bail shall be granted in serious cases like economic offences involving blatant corruption.
    8. To grant bail, the court must be satisfied that the allegation of malafide is substantial and not general.
  3. This Court combined various petitions filed over the grant of anticipatory bail and the power of police to investigate. 

Issue

  1. Whether the High Court was right in rejecting the anticipatory bail and formulating the eight-point rules for granting bail under Section 438 of the CrPC, 1978.

Ratio Decidendi

Eight point rules

  1. Ordinarily, bail has to be granted under S.437 & S.439 after the arrest of the accused, but the power under S.439 is extraordinary as it has to be used without any arrest being made, it cannot be said that it has to be used in exceptional cases only. Rather it shall be used with due care and circumspection.
  2. The applicant must have to show that he has a reason to believe that he will be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Anticipatory bail is a device to secure an individual's liberty, it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any or all kinds of occupations likely or unlikely.
  3. The legislature purposefully departed from the conditions under S.437 and S.439 of the CrPC, 1973 while enacting S.438.
  4. The applicant only has to make a case.
  5. The grant of anticipatory bail has to be made with the conditions provided by S.438(2) which ensures an uninterrupted investigation.
  6. S.438(1) is wider than S.437(1) as the expression used in S.438(1) is "as it thinks fit" which is absent in the latter. The only condition that the applicant has to make is that he has reason to believe that he will be arrested for a non-bailable offence.
  7. It is impossible to assess the blatantness of corruption at the stage of anticipatory bail.

Other observations

  1. The 41st Report of the Law Commission, on which recommendation, provision of Anticipatory Bail has been enacted concluded that the grant of such bail shall be left to the discretion of the Court.
  2. The 41st report of the Law Commission of India pointed out the necessity to introduce the concept of 'Anticipatory Bail' to prevent innocent persons from apprehension as it has been seen in several cases where influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases to disgrace them and to detain them in jail.
  3. The 48th report of the Law Commission recommended the following directions to prevent the misuse of provisions related to Anticipatory Bail.
    1.  the initial order of bail should be an interim one.
    2. the final order should be made after notice to the Public Prosecutor.
    3.  the notice of interim and final order must also be given to the Superintendent of Police. 

Decisions

  1. The Court must be satisfied with the condition provided in S.438(1) i.e. the applicant has a "reason to believe" that he may arrested for a non-bailable offence.
  2. The Court shall apply its own mind to decide whether a case has been made out or not.
  3. Anticipatory Bail can be granted even if an FIR has not been registered.
  4. Anticipatory Bail can be granted after an FIR is filed if the accused has not yet been arrested. It can not be invoked after arrest.
  5. Set aside the order of Punjab and Haryana High Court.
  6. Bail was granted to the appellant.

Summary

In this case, Gurbaksh Singh, a minister of irrigation, filed a Special Leave Petition under Section 136 against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which rejected his anticipatory bail application. The honourable Court set aside the decision of the High Court after considering the necessity to grant bail under Section 438. Also, the apex Court rejected the directions given by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and held that the Court shall use the discretion provided by S.438 with due care and circumspection. This discretion cannot be bound by any conditions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more