2020 (3) TMI 1449 - HC - Indian Laws

Rejection of Anticipatory Bail - special conditions when applicant can approach High Court directly by way of a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code - HELD THAT - The learned Judge chose was correct to observe that it would be imprudent to exhaustively chronicle what would constitute special circumstances. A further caveat was placed with the learned Judge observing that the aforesaid exposition on the question should not be viewed as an attempt to exhaustively enunciate what would constitute special circumstances. The learned Judge thus left it entirely at the discretion of the Judge considering a petition for anticipatory bail to ascertain whether such special circumstances did in fact exist entitling the applicant to approach the High Court directly. There can never be an encyclopedic exposition as to what would constitute special circumstances. The grounds on which a petition for anticipatory bail may be instituted before the High Court can neither be placed in a straightjacket nor can be comprehensively enumerated. Vinod Kumar 2019 (12) TMI 1436 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT rightly desisted from either postulating or particularizing the various circumstances in which an individual may be recognized as entitled to move the High Court directly and left it to the judicious discretion of the Court to be exercised bearing in mind the facts and exigencies of each particular case. The words of caution and circumspection as entered in GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB 1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT and Sushila Agarwal 2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT in the context of the power conferred by Section 438 apply with equal force while understanding the nature and extent of the concurrent jurisdiction of the High Court. Regard must be had to the fact that it is well nigh impossible to predict upon imponderables such as the immanency of the threat issues of access to justice and redress and the exigencies of a particular situation. It would not only be unwise but injudicious to frame what was dubbed in Sibbia to be formulae of universal application . The Court would be well advised to leave it to a judicious exercise of discretion in the facts of each cause brought before it. It was open for the learned Judge to assess the facts of each case to form an opinion whether special circumstances existed or not entitling the applicant there to approach the High Court directly - The special circumstances the existence of which have been held to be a sine qua non to the entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail directly by the High Court must be left for the consideration of the Hon ble Judge before whom the petition is placed and a decision thereon taken bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of that particular cause. However special circumstances must necessarily exist and be established as such before the jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked - Reference disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction to reject anticipatory bail.
2. Reconsideration of grounds in Vinod Kumar case.
3. Direct approach to High Court for anticipatory bail.
4. Conditions for entertaining anticipatory bail applications.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction to Reject Anticipatory Bail:
The court considered whether it has the jurisdiction to reject anticipatory bail applications based on the grounds mentioned in the affidavit. The court concluded that it does have such jurisdiction and must assess whether special circumstances exist to justify the applicant approaching the High Court directly without first applying to the Sessions Court.

2. Reconsideration of Grounds in Vinod Kumar Case:
The court examined whether certain grounds enumerated in the Vinod Kumar case required reconsideration. Specifically, it considered:
- Ground (A): Whether co-accused can approach the High Court directly if another co-accused's bail is rejected by the Sessions Court.
- Ground (B): Whether an accused not residing within the jurisdiction of the concerned Sessions Court should be allowed to approach the High Court directly.

The court concluded that the grounds in Vinod Kumar do not require reconsideration. It emphasized that the existence of special circumstances must be convincingly established and not rest on vague allegations.

3. Direct Approach to High Court for Anticipatory Bail:
The court addressed whether parties should approach the Sessions Court first before invoking the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. It reaffirmed that although the High Court and Sessions Court have concurrent jurisdiction, strong, cogent, compelling, and special circumstances must justify approaching the High Court directly. The court highlighted that what constitutes "special circumstances" must be left to the discretion of the judge based on the facts of each case.

4. Conditions for Entertaining Anticipatory Bail Applications:
The court discussed the conditions under which anticipatory bail applications should be entertained. It emphasized that applications must be based on concrete facts and not vague or general allegations. The court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Sushila Aggarwal, which clarified that applications should contain essential facts relating to the offense and the applicant's reasonable apprehension of arrest.

Conclusion:
The court held that the decision in Vinod Kumar does not merit reconsideration or further explanation. It affirmed that the discretion to entertain anticipatory bail applications directly should be exercised judiciously based on the facts of each case. The court emphasized that special circumstances must be convincingly established and not rest on vague allegations.

Final Ruling:
The court answered the reference by stating that:
- Questions (i) and (iv) do not merit elucidation, as it is for the concerned judge to assess the existence of special circumstances.
- Questions (ii) and (iii) were answered in the negative, affirming that Vinod Kumar does not require reconsideration.
- The individual applications should be placed before the appropriate bench for disposal in light of the above conclusions.