Just to be very precise in authoring this blog having gone through labyrinth of decisions, in author’s view, these decisions can be categorised as 𝐢) 𝐏𝐫𝐞-𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 sought on ground of pendency of adjudication, 𝐢𝐢) 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐥 sought on ground of unconstitutionality of arrest provisions, 𝐢𝐢𝐢) 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐛𝐚𝐢𝐥 sought on other grounds.
𝐏𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐝𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧
Regarding category one, the views of Hon’ble Telangana HC in the case of P.V. Ramana[1] as well as Hon’ble Guj HC in case of Vimal Yashwantgiri[2] holds the field,- pre-arrest protection on this ground is not allowed. A SLP filed against decision of Telangana HC came to be dismissed by SC[1] vide order dated 27.05.2019. Vide later order in case of Sapna Jain, SC also directed all HC’s shall keep in mind its order dated 27.05.2019 wherein the SLP filed against decision of Telangana HC was dismissed [4].
𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐁𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐨𝐧 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬
The category two is surrounded by numerous decisions wherein the P&H High Court in case of Tarun Bassi, Manoj Cables Limited[5] granted bail considering nature of allegations / granted interim bail. But this ground also failed to enlarge the benefit of bail as various HC’s resisted themselves to blindly follow this contentions in the absence of no stay being given on operation of these provisions.
Delhi HC in case of Dhruv Krishan Maggu [6] issued a very detailed order in this regard wherein the constitutionality of arrest provisions was sought to be upheld in light of Entry 1 of List III i.e. Concurrent List (With due respect, the author has reservation on this classification).
𝐀 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐭𝐰𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 – 𝐏&𝐇 𝐇𝐂 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐀𝐤𝐡𝐢𝐥 𝐊𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐌𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐮[7]
Though this case has been equally relied upon as well as distinguished by various HC’s including Guj HC in case of Vimal (Supra) and it is also confused whether it has distinguished the decision of Telangana HC in P.V. Ramana (supra), in author’s view, it should be followed to seek regular bail on other grounds i.e., other than pendency of adjudication. This decision has clarified that decision of P.V. Ramana Rao cannot be followed in all cases. Various Sessions Courts as well as High Court have already started categorising the offences in either of 6 illustrative lists given in this case to enlarge the applicant on bail.
[1] 2019 (4) TMI 1320
[2] 2020 (11) TMI 40
[3] SLP (Crl.) No. 4430/2019
[4] 2019 (6) TMI 58.
[5] 2020 (6) TMI 728 dated 12.06.2020; 2020 (6) TMI 729 dated 16.06.2020
[6] 2021 (1) TMI 330 (Del)
[7] 2019 (11) TMI 942