INTRODUCTION
Bail anticipatory is a preventive measure that is taken when one feels that he/she will be arrested soon in a criminal case while the law protects from arrest before charges are prepared. However, the bare assertion that custodial interrogation is not required cannot be the sole reason for granting anticipatory bail. This principle has been recently restored in several recent judgements passed in India and stress the limitations of liberty and the credibility of the pending investigation.
BACKGROUND
Chapter XXII known as Anticipatory Bail is contained in Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. It enables a person to apply for bail when he expects to be arrested for a non-bail-able offense. The justification is to protect freedom or when one might be imprisoned for a trivial offense, or when charges are fabricated against him. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has given out certain contingencies for granting anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation is one of them.
The earlier decision by the Supreme Court of India has been of the view that the Court while dealing with anticipatory bail has to act in accordance with the discretion vested in it and subject to grant anticipatory bail, it should take into consideration, the nature of accusations, the serious or otherwise of the offense with which the accused is charged and the role of the accused. It is of course recognised that physical custody and interrogation may not always be required but recent judgments have held that this cannot be the basis for denying anticipatory bail.
KEY ASPECTS
Purpose of Custodial Interrogation: Custodial interrogation has been rationalized as a way of getting at the truth; as a way of getting at evidence and as a way of presenting new facts to the accused. This they apply more so in economic offenses, organized crime or when conducting complex investigations, then we see that the aspect of custodial interrogation features more. To make the necessary assessment, the courts must know whether the interrogation of the accused in custody was necessary to serve justice.
Granting Anticipatory Bail:Anticipatory bail has further been defined by courts as not that which should be accorded on the simple fact that the accused did not undergo custodial interrogation. In the State of Madhya Pradesh vs In Pradeep Sharma v The Supreme Court of India has said that anticipatory bail cannot be granted on the grounds that custodial interrogation is not required. Others things that can be used to deem some suspect dangerous for the society include: For instance, the offense that the suspect is being investigated on and if the suspect has a record of involvement in criminal activities in the past; the likelihood of the suspect altering or influencing evidence or witnesses.
Balancing Personal Liberty and Investigation Needs: It is an equitable exercise that has always been performed by the judiciary with a view of ascertaining whether individual rights should be protected or not, while at the same time ensuring that the progress of investigations is not prejudiced. As in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. In State of Maharashtra v Superintendent of Police, Mumbai the Supreme Court of india outlined certain principles which balance of both is considered superior. Although citizens’ freedom remains one of the greatest accomplishments of democracies, it cannot be used to protect people from investigations. The question which courts face is the protection of the right against self-incrimination against the need for custodial interrogation and misuse of anticipatory bail provisions.
Judicial Observations: As indicated by the courts of law, anticipatory bail is not a license for the accused to Vendor away from the law. Similarly in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. In seeking anticipatory bail in the State of Punjab it was pointed out that anticipatory bail is not a rule but an exception. This privilege, however, should be exercised by judges so that they can also determine if the interrogation is necessary for custodial investigation.
CONCLUSION
Although compulsory interrogations by the custody is an indispensable aspect to determine anticipatory bail it cannot solely determine its granting or rejection. In recent years, the Indian courts have focused on the rights and wrongs of an accused person, on one hand, and the requirement of a proper investigation on the other. Judicial discretion has to be wisely applied by the courts so that anticipatory bail does not become a means for any person to delay and/or thwart legal processes, at the same time, constitutional rights cannot be violated. The principle that custodial interrogation is not needed should not blind lawyers to other necessities such as the gravity of the offense or fear of tampering with evidence.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: PAYAL DEVNANI
