On September 10, 2024, the Supreme Court of India ruled that individuals currently in custody for one offense are still eligible to apply for anticipatory bail concerning a different offense. The Court emphasized that the right to personal liberty, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, must be upheld unless explicitly restricted by law.
The ruling, issued by a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, with Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, addressed the legal ambiguity surrounding whether a person already incarcerated for one crime could seek bail protection for another. This landmark decision affirms that there is no “express or implied restriction” within the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) or any other statute that bars courts from considering anticipatory bail applications under such circumstances.
The Court’s judgment, delivered by Justice Pardiwala, reinforced that denying anticipatory bail to an accused already in custody for another offense would contradict the purpose of Section 438 of the CrPC. It underscored that such restrictions would undermine procedural fairness and the protection of personal liberty as envisioned by the Constitution.
The ruling came in response to an appeal against a 2023 Bombay High Court decision, which had allowed a pre-arrest bail plea in a cheating and forgery case despite the individual being in custody for a money laundering case. The Supreme Court criticized arguments suggesting that additional arrests only compound an individual’s humiliation and highlighted the procedural fairness needed to protect personal liberty.
The judgment clarified that Section 438 of the CrPC, which allows anticipatory bail, should not be read with any additional restrictions not specified by law. It also outlined that a person can be arrested for a new offense while in custody for another, provided legal procedures such as obtaining a Prisoner Transit Warrant (PT Warrant) are followed. However, if anticipatory bail is granted for the new offense, the investigating agency cannot seek remand for that offense.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Section 438 was designed to safeguard personal liberty in a democratic society, aligning with the principle that every individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.