Supreme Court Of India’s Landmark Bail Cases Laws In Non-Bailable Offences: A Historical Examination

Yash Goyal, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana

INTRODUCTION

The topic of bail has been extensively dealt with in Chapter 33 (Sections 436 to 450) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). The term ‘bail’ has not been defined anywhere throughout the CrPC1. The basic meaning of bail is the temporary release of an accused person from custody when the investigation and his trial is pending to safeguard his rights so that he is not indefinitely detained merely on account of accusation as he is innocent until proven guilty. For the purpose of ensuring that he appears before the court when called after his release, a bond needs to be signed by him paying a certain amount, as directed by the court, attesting sureties who would be responsible to pay damages on his behalf, in case he does not appear as and when asked to appear before the court.2

The subject of bail – particularly anticipatory bail – has attracted tremendous debate as to the spectrum of the need of its penchant or disinclination in granting it. Anticipatory bail is clearly mentioned and explained in Section 438 of the CrPC. It states that a person who anticipates that he may be arrested can seek to file for bail to a Session Court or High Court if accused of a non-bailable offence 3. The paper will review certain landmark cases on the subject of anticipatory bail, in particular and an elucidation of the most recent Supreme Court guidelines on bail in non-bailable offences (Section 437 of CrPC) in India. A common question that arises on the subject of bail is whether it is a fundamental right for a person to be granted it. The simple answer to it is that it mostly is not. But in greater nuance, it depends on a lot of conditions pertaining to specific cases and situations.