Can’t Reject Anticipatory Bail Plea On The Grounds That Chargesheet Is Filed Or Court Has Taken Cognizance Of...
Can’t Reject Anticipatory Bail Plea Solely Because Chargesheet is Filed or Court has Taken Cognizance
Background
Anticipatory Bail is a legal remedy under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of arrest in a non-bailable offence.
Filing of a chargesheet or taking cognizance of the offence by the court are procedural steps in criminal prosecution.
However, these steps alone do not automatically disqualify a person from seeking anticipatory bail.
Why Chargesheet Filing or Cognizance Cannot Be Sole Ground for Rejecting Anticipatory Bail?
Anticipatory Bail is a Preventive Remedy:
It protects a person from the rigors of arrest before trial begins, which could be oppressive or unwarranted.
Filing Chargesheet or Cognizance is Part of Trial Process:
These are procedural milestones and do not reflect the merit of the allegations.
Objective is to Prevent Unnecessary Detention:
Bail is about liberty; hence, mere filing of chargesheet or cognizance should not result in automatic denial of bail.
Judicial Discretion Must Be Exercised on Facts and Circumstances:
Courts must consider seriousness of offence, evidence, likelihood of tampering, or fleeing—not just procedural status.
Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 438 CrPC: Provides power to High Court or Sessions Court to grant anticipatory bail.
Section 167 CrPC: Provides time frame for police custody during investigation.
Key Case Laws
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632
Supreme Court held that mere filing of FIR or chargesheet does not bar grant of anticipatory bail.
The purpose is to prevent unnecessary arrest and custodial interrogation.
Court emphasized judicial discretion and examination of facts.
2. Sushila Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi, (2014) 9 SCC 407
The Court held that taking cognizance of a case does not preclude anticipatory bail.
Courts should weigh all circumstances before rejecting bail.
3. Kusum Lata v. State of UP, (2014) 8 SCC 491
Observed that the stage of investigation or trial (even after chargesheet) does not prevent grant of anticipatory bail.
The court must consider the nature of offence and evidence.
4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675
Established the right to bail as an important safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
5. Navjot Sandhu v. State of Punjab (2005) 11 SCC 600
Supreme Court held that the court must not deny bail mechanically based on chargesheet or cognizance alone.
6. Vijay Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 1 SCC 513
Court emphasized that mere filing of chargesheet or cognizance is not a ground for automatic rejection of anticipatory bail.
Each case must be decided on its own facts.
Principles Derived
No Automatic Bar: Filing of chargesheet or taking cognizance is not an absolute bar to anticipatory bail.
Judicial Discretion: Courts must evaluate evidence, seriousness, possibility of tampering, flight risk.
Presumption of Innocence: Bail is to uphold liberty; investigation or chargesheet is not proof of guilt.
Case-by-Case Basis: No rigid rule; facts and circumstances guide decision.
Practical Implications
Accused can move for anticipatory bail even after chargesheet is filed.
Courts must record reasons if anticipatory bail is rejected.
Arbitrary rejection on procedural ground is subject to challenge on appeal or revision.
Protects accused from unnecessary arrest and detention during trial.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Filing of Chargesheet | Not a ground for automatic denial of anticipatory bail |
| Taking Cognizance by Court | Does not bar grant of anticipatory bail |
| Judicial Considerations | Nature of offence, evidence, possibility of tampering, flight risk |
| Objective of Anticipatory Bail | To prevent unnecessary arrest, safeguard liberty |
Conclusion
The judiciary has firmly held that the mere fact that a chargesheet has been filed or the court has taken cognizance of the offence cannot be a sole or automatic reason to reject an anticipatory bail plea. Each application must be decided on its own merits, considering the facts and circumstances to ensure justice and protection of individual liberty.
RELATED Blog
0 comments