GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Headnote
Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Section 438 CrPC — Scope — Judicial balancing of personal liberty and police investigational powers — Held, High Court and Court of Session to exercise discretion wisely; "reason to believe" must be founded on reasonable grounds; blanket orders not to be passed; notice to Public Prosecutor generally required; operation of order need not be limited in time; discretion not to be curtailed by judicial construction of inflexible rules; conditions may be imposed. Appeals allowed in part.
Issue
What is the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concerning anticipatory bail, and what are the limitations, if any, on the discretion of the High Court and Court of Session in granting such bail?
Facts
Appellants, including a minister, sought anticipatory bail from the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 438 CrPC due to grave allegations of political corruption. The High Court Full Bench dismissed their applications, laying down eight restrictive propositions on the exercise of power under Section 438. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court had unduly restricted the scope of Section 438 and imposed limitations not found in the statute.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court and Court of Session should be left to exercise their jurisdiction under Section 438 by a wise and careful use of their discretion. While the power is extraordinary, it should not be curtailed by judicial construction of inflexible rules. The court must balance personal liberty with the investigational powers of the police. A "blanket order" of anticipatory bail should not generally be passed, and the applicant must show "reason to believe" of arrest based on reasonable grounds. Conditions can be imposed, and the operation of the order need not be limited in time. The High Court's restrictive propositions were substantially set aside.
Disposition
allowed in part