A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case explores the critical legal question of whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is maintainable when the accused is already in judicial custody for a different offense. The Supreme Court held that such applications are maintainable if the accused apprehends arrest in connection with another case. Judicial custody in one offense does not negate the accused’s apprehension of arrest in another case. This interpretation aligns with constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 21, ensuring procedural fairness and liberty. The judgment disapproves restrictive interpretations by various High Courts, affirming the broader purpose of anticipatory bail provisions.

Keywords: Anticipatory Bail, Judicial Custody, Section 438 CrPC, Constitutional Liberty, Arrest Apprehension.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title
Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr.

ii) Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 2501 of 2024.

iii) Judgment Date
09 September 2024.

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India.

v) Quorum
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala*, and Manoj Misra, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice J.B. Pardiwala.

vii) Citation
2024 INSC 669.

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

• Section 438, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Anticipatory Bail).
• Article 21, Constitution of India (Right to Personal Liberty).
• Article 14, Constitution of India (Equality before Law).

ix) Judgments Overruled
Divergent High Court opinions, including decisions by the Rajasthan, Allahabad, and Delhi High Courts, were disapproved.

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects
Criminal Law and Constitutional Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from a Bombay High Court judgment permitting anticipatory bail applications for individuals in judicial custody concerning different offenses. The High Court held such applications maintainable despite the appellant’s argument that judicial custody negates the apprehension of arrest. The issue had divided High Court opinions, necessitating Supreme Court intervention to clarify the scope of Section 438.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Appellant’s Position: Dhanraj Aswani, the complainant, challenged Amar Mulchandani’s anticipatory bail application. Mulchandani, already in custody under a separate ECIR, feared arrest in a fraud case registered by the appellant.

2. High Court Ruling: The Bombay High Court held that being in custody for one case does not preclude anticipatory bail for a different case, as the accused retains apprehension of arrest.

3. Supreme Court Intervention: The appellant contended that anticipatory bail undermines the requirement of being available for interrogation under Section 438(2)(i).

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Maintainability of anticipatory bail applications while in judicial custody for a different offense.
2. Compatibility of anticipatory bail provisions with the constitutional right to liberty under Article 21.
3. Extent to which custody impacts “reason to believe” under Section 438.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellant argued that:

1. Anticipatory Bail Contradiction: Judicial custody negates “reason to believe” of arrest.
2. Liberty Uncompromised in Custody: Section 438 protects liberty pre-custody, not post-arrest.
3. Interrogation Obstruction: Conditions under Section 438(2)(i) become unenforceable if custody exists.
4. Alternative Remedies Exist: Accused may seek regular bail under Sections 437 or 439.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The respondent countered that:

1. Constitutional Access to Justice: Denying anticipatory bail violates Article 21 rights.
2. Statutory Language: Section 438 contains no explicit bar for those in custody.
3. Preventive Function: The purpose of anticipatory bail aligns with preventing unwarranted detention.
4. Separation of Cases: Judicial custody in one case does not legally overlap with apprehension in another.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Court held:

• Anticipatory bail under Section 438 remains available unless explicitly restricted by statute.
• Custody in one offense does not eliminate apprehension of arrest for another, fulfilling “reason to believe.”
• Procedural safeguards under Articles 14 and 21 mandate fairness and non-arbitrariness.

b. Obiter Dicta

Judicial interpretations must not constrict statutory safeguards unless explicitly intended by the legislature.

c. Guidelines

1. Custody in one case does not negate anticipatory bail in another.
2. Investigating agencies retain the right to remand the accused for different cases, independent of anticipatory bail grants.
3. Courts must weigh anticipatory bail applications on merits of apprehension alone.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reconciles anticipatory bail jurisprudence with constitutional liberties. It ensures no procedural lacuna deprives the accused of liberty safeguards.

J) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred

1. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694.
2. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565.
3. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1.

Important Statutes Referred

1. Section 438, CrPC 1973.
2. Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of India.