1. The Legal Question on Anticipatory Bail
The key issue in this case was whether a person, already in custody for one offence, can apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if they fear arrest in a different case. The appellant, Dhanraj Aswani, objected to the High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail to the respondent, Amar Mulchandani, who was in custody for a different case. This question holds significant legal importance, as different courts across India have offered varying opinions on this matter. The Supreme Court was asked to resolve this divergence in judicial interpretations.
2. Appellant’s Arguments Against Anticipatory Bail
The appellant's main contention was that the High Court committed an error by granting anticipatory bail while the respondent was already in custody for a different offence. He argued that anticipatory bail is designed for situations where a person fears arrest, but in this case, the respondent was already in custody, so there was no basis for such a fear. The appellant further pointed out that anticipatory bail would not be practical, as the respondent, being in custody, would not be able to comply with the conditions of anticipatory bail, such as appearing for interrogation. The appellant cited several past judgments to support this position, including Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab.
3. Respondent’s Defense of the Right to Bail
On the other hand, the respondent argued that the right to apply for anticipatory bail is tied to the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Even though he was in custody for a different case, he feared being arrested in another case, and thus, he had the right to protect his liberty. The respondent also relied on the principle that where there is a right, there is a remedy (ubi jus ibi remedium) and emphasized that the CrPC does not explicitly prohibit a person already in custody from seeking anticipatory bail in another case. The respondent's legal team supported their arguments by referring to landmark judgments like Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India.
4. Judicial Divergence in High Court Decisions
The Supreme Court, in its analysis, reviewed different decisions from various High Courts, revealing a split in opinions. High Courts like Rajasthan, Delhi, and Allahabad had ruled that anticipatory bail is not maintainable if a person is already in custody for another offence. These courts believed that a person already arrested cannot have a reasonable fear of being arrested again. In contrast, the Bombay and Orissa High Courts took a more liberal approach, ruling that anticipatory bail can still be sought in different cases, even if the person is already in custody, as the fear of arrest in another case remains valid. These courts emphasized that anticipatory bail protects personal liberty in situations where multiple cases are registered against the same person.
5. Supreme Court’s Ruling and Analysis
After analyzing the arguments and reviewing past judgments, the Supreme Court sided with the view that anticipatory bail is maintainable in situations where a person in custody for one case fears arrest in another. The Court held that even though the respondent was already in custody, he could still fear arrest in a different case and should be allowed to seek protection. However, the anticipatory bail would only come into effect once the person is released from custody in the original case. The Court highlighted the importance of balancing the protection of personal liberty with the needs of criminal investigation, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be used as a blanket protection but as a safeguard to ensure that individuals are not subjected to undue harassment through multiple arrests.