Bail before arrest

If, prima facie accused was involved in white collar offence court was not to show generosity to such accused.

Bail before arrest was meant to save innocent persons from the clutches of police, rigors of remand and investigation.

Accepting the version of accused and discarding that of the prosecution thereby assessing matter of two versions without taking into consideration the statement of prosecution eye-witnesses recorded under S.161, Cr.P.C.; seemed beyond the scope of judicious assessment of evidence at the time of pre-arrest bail

Further inquiry into the guilt of accused inter alia mala fide, and with ulterior motives could be assessed in a matter of bail before arrest.

Arrest for ulterior motive such as humiliation and unjustified harassment is a valid consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Bail before arrest was an extraordinary relief, the scope whereof was narrow and which could only be extended to a person who was either innocent or who had not committed a non-bailable offence.

Mala fide, no doubt, is a sine qua non for grant of pre-arrest bail, but court can even look and evaluate the same from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Court while deciding the petition can examine the accusations, report of investigating agency and even can touch upon the merits of the case.

Arrest for ulterior motives such as humiliation and unjustified harassment is a valid consideration for grant of pre-arrest bail.

Accused seeking pre-arrest bail had to show that the prosecution had falsely implicated him in the alleged crime in order to cause harm and injury to his reputation and that no material was available with the prosecution to implicate and connect accused with alleged crime.

Bail before arrest could not be granted, unless the person seeking it would satisfy the conditions specified through subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C., and would establish the existence of reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him; and there were in fact sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry into his guilt.

Law relating to bail before arrest summarized.

Considerations for grant of pre-arrest bail are not at all different from the considerations for grant of post arrest bail, as far as merits of the case are concerned

Only difference is that there must be additional basis of humiliation, harassment, mala fides, intention to disgrace and dishonour

If a person is otherwise entitled to bail, no useful purpose shall be served by putting him firstly behind bars and then allowing him bail

Court has to keep a balance

If a fit case for grant of bail is made out, bail before arrest should be allowed in appropriate cases.

Relief prayed for by the petitioner, being misconceived was denied, in circumstances.

No hard and fast rule can be laid down mandating in each and every case that a person must be compelled to go to the Trial Court and file pre-arrest bail application there instead of directly coming to High Court

High Court in appropriate cases can grant interim bail and can even confirm such bail to a person who has not gone to Trial Court for obtaining bail before arrest

In compelling and exceptional circumstances and reasonable and plausible explanation, High Court should not hesitate to succour the petitioner before it.

Grant of bail before arrest is an extraordinary relief to be granted only in extraordinary situations to protect innocent. persons against victimization through abuse of law for ulterior motives; pre-arrest bail is not to be used as a substitute or as an alternative for post arrest bail; bail before arrest cannot be granted unless the person seeking it satisfies the conditions specified through subsection (2) of S.497, Cr.P.C. i.e., unless he establishes the existence bf reasonable grounds leading to a belief that he was not guilty of the offence alleged against him and that there were in fact, sufficient grounds warranting further inquiry into his guilt; not just this, but in addition thereto, he must also show that his arrest was being sought for ulterior motive, particularly on the part of the police to cause irreparable humiliation to him and to disgrace and dishonour him; such a petitioner should further establish that he had not done or suffered any act which would disentitle him to a discretionary relief in equity i.e., he had no past criminal record or that he had not been a fugitive at law; and finally in the absence of a reasonable and a justifiable cause, he must in the first instance approach the Court of first instance, i.e. the Court of Session, before petitioning the High Court for the purpose.

Privilege of pre-arrest bail can only be availed of by a person who surrenders before the Court.

Going of accused to the place of occurrence along with co-accused, fully armed, but not firing at the deceased or prosecution witnesses, did not appeal to reason

Accused simply resorted to aerial firing

Accused alleged to have thrown .12 bore gun at the spot but record did not show that the same was licensed in his name

Nephew of accused claimed the gun by moving application for interim custody of the gun

Investigation Officer had concluded that the accused did not participate in the occurrence and reached the spot after occurrence was over

Regarding involvement of accused in the cases, he had not been convicted in any criminal case

When there was litigation of accused with father of the co-accused, siding of accused with them in the occurrence, was not believable

Accused happened to be an Advocate by profession and had been falsely implicated with some ulterior motive to harass and humiliate him

Pre-arrest bail was rightly allowed by the Sessions Court which had not committed any illegality

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.

Accused had not been named in the F.I.R. as one of perpetrators of alleged offence and his name had surfaced in the case for the first time through a supplementary statement made, by complainant after about seventeen days of the alleged occurrence

Complainant in his supplementary statement had disclosed that he had come to know through two witnesses regarding involvement of accused in the case as accused had allegedly made extra-judicial confession before said witnesses

Investigating Officer had categorically stated that said witnesses had not appeared before him nor they had joined investigation so far

Investigating Officer had further stated that no recovery was to be effected from possession of accused and that accused had also joined investigation whereas complainant party had failed to join the same

Investigating Officer had maintained that , he did not need physical custody of accused for purpose of investigation of case

Assertion of accused regarding his mala fide implication in the case, could not be without any foundation in view of said stand taken by Investigating Officer

Ad interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to accused, was confirmed in circumstances.

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed in circumstances and the accused was admitted to pre-arrest bail accordingly.

Basic conditions are, that the accused apprehends arrest due to some ulterior motives or mala fides on the part of the Authorities or other influential persons or there are some peculiar features of the case, e.g., the accused enjoys good name and his arrest may humiliate him in public eyes, which would justify the exercise of this discretionary power.

Accused neither were present at the spot at time of occurrence nor they were attributed any injury to deceased or injured though their names were mentioned in the F.I.R.

Occurrence though allegedly had taken place with abetment of accused persons, but no detail of hatching conspiracy by them was mentioned alongwith names of witnesses before whom conspiracy was hatched

Prima facie story of alleged conspiracy seemed to be an afterthought in order to widen the net by complainant party to involve maximum persons from the accused party

Possibility of false implication of accused persons they being real brother and real uncle of the main accused, could not be ruled out

Pre-arrest bail was meant to protect innocent citizens, if involved with mala fide intention

Case of accused being of further inquiry, interim pre-arrest bail already granted to one of the accused persons was confirmed and other accused was granted post-arrest bail.

Matter pending between the parties based on a written agreement was purely of civil nature, but efforts had been made to convert the same into criminal litigation

Accused, according to F. I. R. were armed with fire-arms, hatchets and Dandas but not a single scratch was sustained either by the complainant or any of the prosecution witnesses

No detail of the articles allegedly taken away by the accused from the spot had been given

Accused seemed to be respectable businessmen and the mala fides of the complainant and the police were floating on the surface

Liberty of seven individuals was involved in the case which, prima facie, seemed to be outcome of the mala fides of the complainant who in connivance with the local police had got the same registered against the accused

Interim bail already granted to the accused was confirmed in circumstances.

Complainant had specifically mentioned accused as one of the accused person who had committed theft of vehicle mentioned in F.I.R.

Complainant had specifically stated that accused and his co-accused were involved earlier in a case in which vehicle was stolen and they were challaned in the said case

Specific allegation had been levelled against the accused who had failed to show any reason of his false implication in the case

Bail before arrest was meant to protect innocent citizens and that discretionary relief could only be exercised in favour of innocent citizens, but in case of accused, sufficient evidence was on record which required thorough investigation which could only be done after joining accused

Grant of bail before arrest to accused, in circumstances, would definitely hamper investigation as recovery was yet to be effected

Accused having failed to make out his case for bail before arrest, application of accused was dismissed.

Offences against the accused under Ss. 337-A (i) do 504, P. P. C. were bailable and offence under S. 506, P.P.C. though was not bailable, but did not fall within the prohibitory clause of S. 497(1), Cr.P.C

Basic principle was free life and not jail life

If the bail was granted, by mistake by the Court to accused, there was compensation and the accused could be awarded conviction and sentence, but in a case where the accused was kept behind the bars for years together and ultimately the case resulted in his acquittal then there was no compensation

Bail before arrest granted to- the accused was confirmed.

Accused applying for grant of bail straightaway before High Court suppressing fact that he had already applied for pre-arrest bail before trial Court in which notice had been issued to State

Assertions made in Petition for Leave to Appeal against grant of bail by High Court requiring consideration

Leave granted.

Leave to appeal refused in circumstances.

Order refusing bail before arrest, upheld.

Art. 185(3) read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 498 and Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S. 302-Bail before arrest-Appeal against -Circumstances under which pre-arrest bail can be granted Grant of pre-arrest bail in serious case like murder-Held, should be rare-Accused duly named by deceased in F. I. R. as one of assailant who fired and injured deceased

Motive for crime and firearm injuries broadly supported by medico-legal and post-mortem reports-Dying statement of deceased constituting F. I. R. can form basis of conviction-Co-accused still absconding-Held, pre-arrest bail in circumstances not deserved-Discretion in granting pre-arrest bail not used by Courts below in accordance with object and purpose of law on subject-Converting leave petition into appeal, orders passed by Court of Session and High Court set aside and bail cancelled.

Ss.498 & 498-A-Pre-arrest bail-Petitioner, in order to justify grant of pre-arrest bail, must show apprehension of his arrest on account of ulterior motives-Grant of pre-arrest bail-Not a ruleAllegations made in first information report and result of post-mortem examination, held, justified refusal of pre-arrest bail in case in hand

Leave to appeal against order of High Court setting aside order of Sessions Judge confirming petitioner's bail before arrest sought on grounds (i) report lodged by petitioner prior in time than that of respondent, (ii) plea of self-defence prima facie made out, (iii) petitioner not assigned any, active role,(iv) none of injuries on deceased individually fatal, (v) Investigation being complete and over

Held, in order to justify grant of bail before arrest, petitioner must show ulterior motive and no interference required by Supreme Court unless circumstances altogether of an exceptional character-Petitioner's case does not on any conditions qualify for interference in circumstances.

Ss. 497 & 498-Bail before arrest-Investigation Officer alleged to have expressed opinion of accused petitioner being innocent and falsely implicated-Petitioner indisputably neither present at spot nor any overt act attributed to him-Case, held, one of further inquiry and petitioner in meantime entitled to concession of bail-Petitioner ordered to be released on bail but directed to join investigation and appear before Investigating Authorities as and when required.

S. 497/498-Pre-arrest bail-Petitioners not going to be arrested on account of mala fides of prosecution but for being accused of serious criminal offences of having caused many injuries to opposite party after arming themselves with deadly weapons-No question of grant of pre-arrest bail, in circumstances, held, arises.

S. 497-Bail before arrest-Question raised involving inquiry into factual matters and such matters not to be undertaken while deciding bail application-Grant of bail-A discretionary matter High Court in refusing bail before arrest no: exercising its discretion arbitrarily or capriciously, interference declined.

Bail before arrest-Contention that neither complainant nor injured being of any political importance, highly improbable for appellants to have assembled designedly to kill them with fire-arms, that even though all appellants alleged to have fired at complainant party yet surprisingly only one man injured and that too by a single shot while complainant managed to escape and that appellants being office-bearers of opposition party implicated out of malice-Case, held, fit for anticipatory bail.-[Bail].

S. 498-Ball before arrest - Concurrent jurisdiction - Application for pre-arrest bail -Should ordinarily be presented be/ore Sessions Judge in first instance-Applicant, however, not belonging to place where charged with offence, and a number of cases found registered against him-Apprehension of his being arrested before he could approach Sessions Judge-Application for bail before arrest entertained by High Court in special circumstances of case.

Refusal by High Court-Whether Federal Court would grant leave to appeal.