Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently made a significant ruling regarding the power of the Sessions Court or High Court to grant interim/transit anticipatory bail. This ruling is particularly relevant when the First Information Report (FIR) is not registered within the territory of a particular State but in a different State¹.

Transit Anticipatory Bail: The Court’s Observations

The Court observed that the Court of Session or the High Court can exercise jurisdiction and entertain a plea for limited anticipatory bail even if the FIR has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction. This decision is based on the facts and circumstances of the case, and whether the accused, apprehending arrest, makes out a case for the grant of anticipatory bail¹.

The Concept of Transit Anticipatory Bail

The concept of transit anticipatory bail is introduced as an interim protection of limited duration². This protection is granted until the accused approaches the competent Sessions Court or the High Court for seeking full-fledged anticipatory bail.

The Issue of Territorial Jurisdiction

The Court noted that if a transit bail application is rejected on the sole ground of territorial jurisdiction, it would add a restriction to the powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure¹. This could result in a miscarriage and travesty of justice, aggravating the adversity of the accused who is apprehending arrest. It would also be against the principles of access to justice.

The Link to Personal Liberty

The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail, as well as transit anticipatory bail, are intrinsically linked to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court extended the concept of access to justice to such a situation, bearing in mind Article 14 thereof. It was deemed necessary to give a constitutional imprimatur to the evolving provision of transit anticipatory bail.

Conditions for Transit Anticipatory Bail

The Court laid down the following conditions for the grant of transit bail²:

1. Prior to passing the order of limited anticipatory bail, the Investigating Officer and the Public Prosecutor who are seized of the FIR shall be issued notice.
2. The order of grant must record reasons as to why the applicant apprehends an inter-state arrest and the impact of interim anticipatory bail on the status of the investigation.
3. The jurisdiction in which the cognizance of the offense has been taken does not exclude the said offense from the scope of anticipatory bail by way of a state amendment to section 438 CrPC.
4. The applicant must satisfy the court regarding his inability to seek such bail from the court having territorial jurisdiction.

The Case: Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka

In the case of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka⁵:, the Supreme Court, speaking through Chief Justice YV Chandrachud, made some significant observations.

Balancing Personal Liberty and Investigational Powers

The Court observed that society has a vital stake in preserving personal liberty as well as the investigational powers of the police. The relative importance of these two aspects at any given time depends upon the complexion and restraints of political conditions. The focus of the case was on how best to balance these interests while determining the scope of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973⁶.

Personal Liberty and Access to Justice

The Court placed the question in the context of personal liberty and access to justice. It held that the same must also be looked at from the angle of personal liberty and access to justice. Article 39A, which deals with equal justice and free legal aid, can be considered to be a specie of Article 21, which deals with the right to life and liberty⁶.

The Accused Husband’s Anticipatory Bail

In the case at hand, the accused husband was granted extraterritorial anticipatory bail without giving notice where the appellant had lodged an FIR⁵. The Court finally set aside the impugned order by the Sessions Judge.

Conclusion

The judgment in the case of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka has significant implications for the legal landscape in India, particularly in relation to the balance between personal liberty and the investigational powers of the police. It underscores the importance of access to justice and the right to life and liberty, as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Learn More :

• 1.barandbench.com
• 2.lawweb.in
• 3.timesofindia.com
• 4.timesofindia.indiatimes.com
• 5.indiankanoon.org
• 6.main.sci.gov.in

The post Supreme Court’s Ruling on Transit Anticipatory Bail: A Detailed Analysis appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

The Right to travel is considered a fundamental right in India. This right is included under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty to all citizens.

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted Article 21 to include the right to travel as an essential part of personal liberty. This means that every citizen of India has the right to move freely within the country, as well as to leave and return to India.

However, the government can impose certain restrictions on the right to travel in the interest of national security, public order, and morality. For example, the government can impose travel restrictions during times of war or emergency, or restrict travel to certain areas for the safety of the public.

Overall, the Right to travel is considered an important fundamental right in India, and any infringement upon this right is subject to judicial review by the courts.

Right to travel of an accused

The fact that the accused would not be in the country during the trial creates a precarious situation, necessitating caution on the part of the courts when granting their visits. A mechanism must be in place to not only effectively ensure the accused’s return to the country but also to track and trace the accused in the event that certain developments are made that concretize the accused’s culpability as the trial nears its conclusion. As a result of the same, a number of actions have been taken, like providing an undertaking. These commitments have the effect of requiring the accused to be present whenever the court requires it, along with a penalty or legal consequences in the event of a default. In a similar vein, the presentation of a surety bond may also be required, requiring the deposit of money as security or temporarily handing over the title to assets. Documents with legal weight give the court assurance and serve as a precondition for granting the right to travel abroad.

In order to effectuate the restriction on the accused’s travel abroad, courts have over innumerous occasions moved for the seizure or impoundment of their passport. Despite that such a move may be viewed to be contrary to personal liberty and dignity under Article 21, but if the seizure or impoundment is in line with the safeguards enshrined under Maneka Gandhi, it would be constitutional and valid. Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Section 102(1) authorizes a police officer to seize any documents in relation to the commission of an offense, which includes the seizure of the passport of an accused. The police officer must judiciously exercise this power as it is ultimately subject to the scrutiny of the court. Despite that the Police is granted the right to seize a passport temporarily, they cannot impound the same. The authority to impound a passport lies exclusively with the Passport Authority, stripping the Police and any other law enforcement agency the power to do so. This power is subject to the discretion of the Passport Officer and, if the case need be, the Chief Passport Officer.

Judicial Standpoint

The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Anila Bhatia vs. State of Haryana (09.10.2018 – PHHC) deeply engaged with the question of travel restrictions imposed under bail conditions.

The Court observed that when a person is made to surrender his passport, it curtails his right of movement beyond the country. Article 21 of the Constitution of India says:

“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

9. The expression “personal liberty” is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of a person. The Supreme Court, in Satwant Singh v. Asst. The Passport Officer held that “personal liberty” guaranteed under Article 21 encompassed a right of locomotion, or the right to travel abroad. Every person living in India has a fundamental right to travel, even outside India. Refusal by the Government to issue a passport without a valid law prescribing reasonable restrictions was held to be an arbitrary exercise of the executive power infringing the equality clause of the Constitution. After the decision in Satwant Singh’s case the Parliament passed the Passport Act, 1967 regulating conditions for the grant and refusal of passports and providing grounds for impounding passports. Even after passing of the said Act, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India the Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is not only encompassed in the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, but that right could only be denied if the procedural law which governed its excuse is fair.”

The Court further observed that the criminal courts have to take extreme care in imposing such conditions. It cannot mechanically, and in every case where an accused has a passport impose a condition for its surrender. Law presumes an accused to be innocent till he is declared guilty. As a presumably innocent person he is entitled to all the fundamental rights guaranteed to him under the Constitution. At the same time, the interest of the society has also to be protected. The court has to strike a balance between personal liberty of the accused guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, investigation rights of the police and the interest of the society. 

The court also observed that while the police may have power to seize a passport under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code if it is permissible within the authority given under Section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code, it does not have power to retain or impound the same, because that can only be done by the passport authority under Section 10(3) of the Passports Act. Hence, if the police seizes a passport (which it has power to do under Section 102 Criminal Procedure Code), thereafter the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in Section 10(3) of the Act. It is thereafter the passport authority to decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil consequences, the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding his passport.

Written by Advocate Husain Trivedi

The post Bail Conditions Pertaining to Travel Restrictions appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Personal liberty stands as the cornerstone of democratic society, embodying the fundamental principle that freedom is the rule while incarceration remains the exception. The concept of anticipatory bail, enshrined in Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, represents a critical safeguard designed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest and detention. This provision emerged from the recognition that the mere accusation of a crime should not automatically result in custodial punishment, particularly when there exist reasonable grounds to believe that such accusations may be motivated by malice or political vendetta.

The philosophical foundation of anticipatory bail rests upon the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence that must be balanced against the legitimate requirements of criminal investigation and societal protection. As observed by the Supreme Court, “in a barbaric society you can hardly ask for a bail, in civilised society you can hardly refuse it. The bail is rule and refusal is an exception.”

Historical Development and Legislative Intent

Genesis of Anticipatory Bail Provisions

The Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 did not contain any provision corresponding to Section 438 of the present Code. The absence of such a provision led to significant judicial discord among various High Courts regarding the inherent power of courts to grant pre-arrest bail. This uncertainty in judicial approach highlighted the urgent need for legislative intervention to provide clarity and uniformity in the application of pre-arrest bail principles.

The 41st Law Commission Report of 1969 proved to be the watershed moment in the evolution of anticipatory bail jurisprudence in India [1]. The Commission identified several compelling reasons for introducing anticipatory bail provisions, recognizing that influential individuals often exploited the criminal justice system to harass their rivals through false accusations. The Commission noted that such individuals would deliberately implicate their opponents in fabricated cases with the primary objective of securing their detention, thereby causing public humiliation and personal suffering.

Legislative Response and Enactment

Parliament accepted the recommendations of the Law Commission and incorporated Clause 447 in the draft bill of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1970. Following further deliberations and recommendations from the Law Commission’s 48th Report, this provision was eventually enacted as Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, with the heading “Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.”

The legislative intent behind Section 438 was multifaceted. Primarily, it sought to prevent the misuse of criminal law as an instrument of harassment while simultaneously ensuring that genuine criminal investigations were not impeded. The provision recognized that requiring an innocent person to first submit to custody and then apply for regular bail would be fundamentally unjust, particularly when there existed no reasonable likelihood of the accused absconding or misusing their liberty while on bail.

Legal Framework and Statutory Provisions

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code provides the statutory framework for anticipatory bail. The provision states that when any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail [2].

The section empowers the High Court or Court of Session to consider various factors before granting anticipatory bail, including the nature and gravity of the accusation, the antecedents of the applicant, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, and whether the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant.

Jurisdictional Framework

The jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail is vested exclusively in the High Court and the Court of Session. This deliberate limitation reflects the legislative recognition that anticipatory bail involves complex considerations requiring judicial expertise and experience. However, it is generally presumed that applications should first be made to the Court of Session unless adequate grounds exist for directly approaching the High Court.

The Supreme Court has clarified that if a Sessions Court rejects an anticipatory bail application, the applicant retains the right to approach the High Court on the same facts. Conversely, if the High Court rejects such an application, the applicant cannot subsequently approach a Sessions Court with the same application.

Pre-requisites for Anticipatory Bail

For an application under Section 438 to be maintainable, two essential prerequisites must be satisfied. First, the offence in question must be non-bailable in nature. Anticipatory bail provisions do not apply to bailable offences since regular bail in such cases is granted as a matter of right under Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Second, the applicant must demonstrate a “reason to believe” that arrest is imminent. This belief must be reasonable and based on specific facts and circumstances, not merely a vague apprehension or unfounded fear. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Section 438 cannot be invoked based on speculative or frivolous allegations.

Constitutional Foundations

Article 21 and Personal Liberty

The constitutional underpinning of anticipatory bail finds its roots in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. This provision ensures that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 21 has evolved significantly since the landmark judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where the Court held that the procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable.

Article 22 and Protection Against Arbitrary Detention

Article 22 of the Constitution provides specific safeguards against arbitrary arrest and detention [3]. This provision mandates that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed of the grounds for such arrest, nor shall he be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner of his choice. Every person arrested and detained in custody must be produced before the nearest magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest, excluding the time necessary for journey from the place of arrest to the court.

The constitutional guarantee under Article 22 serves as a crucial backstop against arbitrary state action, ensuring that even when arrests occur, fundamental procedural safeguards remain intact. The provision recognizes that personal liberty is too precious to be left entirely to the discretion of investigating agencies and requires judicial oversight at the earliest possible stage.

Landmark Judicial Interpretations

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)

The Constitution Bench judgment in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab stands as the foundational precedent in anticipatory bail jurisprudence [4]. The case arose when Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, who served as Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Punjab Government, faced allegations of political corruption along with other ministers. Anticipating arrest, they filed applications for anticipatory bail before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 438.

The High Court’s Full Bench dismissed these applications, imposing restrictive conditions on the grant of anticipatory bail that were not contemplated by the statutory language. The High Court held that the power under Section 438 was extraordinary in character and must be exercised sparingly in exceptional cases only.

The Supreme Court emphatically rejected this restrictive approach, holding that Section 438 employs wide language and confers broad discretion on High Courts and Courts of Session. The Court observed that the provision should not be hedged in by narrow judicial interpretation and that the discretion should be exercised based on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Judicial Guidelines Established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia

The Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia laid down several important principles that continue to guide courts in exercising their discretion under Section 438. The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail is not intended to provide blanket protection for future offences and cannot operate as a shield for continued criminal activity.

The judgment clarified that the filing of a First Information Report is not a prerequisite for seeking anticipatory bail, and such relief can be granted even after an FIR is lodged, provided the applicant has not yet been arrested. The Court also held that anticipatory bail should generally continue until the conclusion of the trial, unless specific circumstances warrant its curtailment.

The Temporal Controversy: Duration of Anticipatory Bail Orders

Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1995)

A significant controversy emerged regarding the temporal scope of anticipatory bail orders following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [5]. In this case, a three-judge bench departed from the principles established in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and held that anticipatory bail orders should necessarily be limited in duration.

The Court reasoned that when anticipatory bail is granted, the investigation remains incomplete, and the court lacks complete information about the evidence against the accused. Therefore, the Court concluded that such orders should be time-bound, and upon expiry, the regular court should determine the question of bail based on the evidence available after investigation.

Resolution in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2020)

The conflicting judicial approaches regarding the duration of anticipatory bail were finally resolved by a five-judge Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) [6]. The Court acknowledged the existence of contradictory precedents and undertook a thorough reexamination of the legal position.

The Constitution Bench emphatically overruled the judgment in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, holding that it was decided per incuriam as it failed to consider the binding precedent in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia. The Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail should not invariably be limited to a fixed period and can continue throughout the trial unless specific circumstances warrant its curtailment.

Factors Governing Grant of Anticipatory Bail

Statutory Considerations

Section 438 specifically enumerates several factors that courts must consider while deciding anticipatory bail applications. These include the nature and gravity of the accusation, which requires courts to assess whether the alleged offence is serious enough to warrant custodial interrogation or whether the charges appear to be frivolous or motivated by malice.

The antecedents of the applicant, including any previous convictions for cognizable offences, constitute another crucial consideration. Courts must evaluate whether the applicant has a history of criminal behavior that might indicate a propensity to misuse the liberty granted through anticipatory bail.

The possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice represents a fundamental concern in bail jurisprudence. Courts must assess factors such as the applicant’s roots in the community, family ties, professional obligations, and financial stakes that might serve as deterrents to absconding.

Judicial Elaboration of Additional Factors

Beyond the statutory factors, judicial precedents have identified additional considerations relevant to anticipatory bail applications. The severity of potential punishment if the trial results in conviction influences the court’s assessment of the likelihood of the accused fleeing justice. Cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment naturally require more stringent scrutiny.

The preponderance of evidence available at the time of application provides insight into the strength of the prosecution’s case. While courts cannot conduct a detailed examination of evidence at the anticipatory bail stage, they may consider whether the accusations appear to be supported by credible material or whether they seem to be based on unfounded allegations.

The character, means, and standing of the accused in society constitute relevant factors, particularly in assessing the likelihood of the accused interfering with the investigation or influencing witnesses. Courts may consider the accused’s social position, financial resources, and potential capacity to obstruct justice.

Conditions and Safeguards

Mandatory Procedural Requirements

Section 438 mandates certain procedural safeguards to ensure that anticipatory bail is not granted without adequate consideration of all relevant interests. When granting interim anticipatory bail, courts must provide the prosecution with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This requirement ensures that the state’s perspective is adequately represented before any protective order is issued.

During the final hearing of the anticipatory bail application, the presence of the accused is mandatory. This requirement facilitates direct judicial assessment of the applicant and ensures that the court can evaluate factors such as the accused’s demeanor, willingness to cooperate, and commitment to complying with bail conditions.

Standard Conditions for Anticipatory Bail

Courts typically impose several standard conditions when granting anticipatory bail to ensure that the protection does not interfere with the legitimate requirements of criminal investigation. The condition requiring the accused to make himself available for interrogation by police officers as and when required balances the protection from arrest with the needs of investigation.

The prohibition against making any inducement, threat, or promise to witnesses or persons acquainted with the facts of the case serves to protect the integrity of the investigation and prevent tampering with evidence. This condition recognizes that while the accused should be protected from arbitrary arrest, such protection should not facilitate obstruction of justice.

The requirement that the accused shall not leave India without prior court permission addresses concerns about the possibility of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction to avoid trial. This condition is particularly relevant in cases involving serious offences or where the accused has significant resources that might facilitate international travel.

Limitations and Exclusions

Statutory Exclusions Under Section 438(4)

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, introduced significant limitations on the availability of anticipatory bail by adding sub-section (4) to Section 438 [7]. This provision excludes anticipatory bail for persons accused of committing certain specified sexual offences under the Indian Penal Code, including rape of women under sixteen years of age and gang rape of women under sixteen years of age.

These exclusions reflect legislative recognition that certain categories of offences are so heinous that the normal presumptions favoring liberty must yield to overriding concerns about public safety and the protection of vulnerable victims. The amendments demonstrate Parliament’s commitment to ensuring that anticipatory bail provisions are not misused in cases involving serious crimes against women and children.

Judicial Restrictions and Exceptional Circumstances

Courts have recognized that anticipatory bail should not be granted as a matter of course and that certain circumstances may warrant denial of such relief even when statutory requirements are satisfied. Cases involving allegations of terrorism, narcotics offences, or other crimes affecting national security often warrant careful scrutiny and may justify denial of anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be granted when custodial interrogation is essential for effective investigation. In cases where the accused’s knowledge is crucial for uncovering a larger conspiracy or recovering proceeds of crime, courts may conclude that the requirements of investigation outweigh the accused’s claim to pre-arrest liberty.

Contemporary Developments and Future Directions

Evolution Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, has retained the essential features of anticipatory bail under Section 482 [8]. However, certain modifications have been introduced to streamline the process and provide greater clarity regarding the scope and application of anticipatory bail provisions.

The new legislation has omitted certain sub-clauses that were present in the original Section 438, while retaining the core framework for granting anticipatory bail. These changes reflect legislative intent to simplify the provision while maintaining the essential protections for personal liberty.

Challenges in Implementation

Despite the robust legal framework governing anticipatory bail, practical challenges persist in its implementation. The discretionary nature of anticipatory bail decisions sometimes leads to inconsistent approaches across different courts, creating uncertainty for legal practitioners and litigants.

The balance between protecting individual liberty and ensuring effective criminal investigation remains delicate, requiring courts to carefully weigh competing interests in each case. The increasing complexity of modern criminal conspiracies, particularly those involving economic offences and cybercrime, presents new challenges in determining when anticipatory bail is appropriate.

Balancing Liberty and Law Enforcement

Protecting Individual Rights

The institution of anticipatory bail serves as a crucial safeguard against the potential misuse of criminal law for harassment or political vendetta. In a democratic society, the protection of individual liberty must remain paramount, even while ensuring that genuine criminal investigations are not impeded.

The provision recognizes that the stigma and practical consequences of arrest can be devastating, even when charges are ultimately proven to be unfounded. By providing protection against arbitrary arrest, anticipatory bail helps maintain public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system.

Ensuring Investigative Efficacy

While anticipatory bail protects individual liberty, it must be implemented in a manner that does not unreasonably hinder legitimate criminal investigations. Courts must carefully evaluate whether granting anticipatory bail would prejudice the investigation or enable the accused to destroy evidence, influence witnesses, or otherwise obstruct justice.

The conditions imposed with anticipatory bail orders serve to strike this balance by ensuring that while the accused is protected from arrest, the requirements of investigation are adequately addressed. The success of this balance depends largely on the judicious exercise of judicial discretion and the faithful compliance with bail conditions by accused persons.

Conclusion

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code represents a sophisticated legal instrument designed to protect personal liberty while maintaining the integrity of criminal investigations. The provision embodies the fundamental principle that freedom should not be curtailed except when absolutely necessary for the administration of justice.

The evolution of anticipatory bail jurisprudence through landmark judgments such as Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Sushila Aggarwal demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to protecting individual rights while adapting to changing social and legal circumstances. The recent legislative amendments, including the exclusions for certain sexual offences, reflect Parliament’s recognition that the balance between liberty and security must evolve in response to contemporary challenges.

As the criminal justice system continues to evolve, anticipatory bail will remain a critical mechanism for ensuring that the power of arrest is not misused while maintaining the effectiveness of criminal investigations. The success of this institution depends on the continued vigilance of the judiciary in protecting individual rights and the responsible exercise of this protection by those who seek its shelter.

The future of anticipatory bail jurisprudence will likely involve continued refinement of the balance between individual liberty and collective security, with courts adapting established principles to address emerging challenges in criminal law enforcement. Through careful judicial interpretation and responsible legislative oversight, anticipatory bail will continue to serve as a vital guardian of personal liberty in India’s democratic framework.

Are you looking for Bail for someone? Get in touch with Bail Lawyers now

References

[1] Law Commission of India, 41st Report on the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (1969). 

[2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 438. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_5_23_000010_197402_1517807320555&orderno=487 

[3] Constitution of India, Article 22. Available at: https://www.constitutionofindia.net/articles/article-22-protection-against-arrest-and-detention-in-certain-cases/ 

[4] Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1308768/ 

[5] Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 1042. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/772627/ 

[6] Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), AIR 2020 SC 831. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/ 

[7] The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018. 

[8] The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482. Available at: https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/anticipatory-bail-under-bnss 

The post Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: A Legal Analysis appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.