1980 AIR 1632, 1980 SCR (3) 383
9 April, 1980
Petitioner: Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors.
Defendant: State of Punjab
Statutes Referred:
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
The Constitution of India
Cases Referred:
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upaydhay {1961} 1 SCR 14
Balchand Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1977] 2 SCR 52
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248
State v. Captain Jagjit Singh [1962] 3 SCR 622
Facts of the Cases
1.This case is a landmark case based on the concept of Anticipatory Bail in India under the section 438 of CrPC which provides bail in anticipation of arrest as in India there is no specific term which mentions the anticipation bail in the Indian legislations.
2. So in this case, the petitioner Gurbaksh Singh was holding a Ministerial position in the Irrigation and Power Department in the Government of Punjab under the rule of congress government. So, basically in this case the petitioner and few other colleagues were alleged for the accusation of corruption and undue use of power.
3. So, the petitioner have applied for the anticipatory bail under section 438 of CrPC in the Higher courts of Punjab and Haryana. And at the court they have prayed for their release on the event of arrest on the basis of above stated charges.
4. But the plea was dismissed by the bench of the High Court on special leave to appeal but the plea was also allowed by the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised
- Whether the section 437 & 438 of the CrPC grants bail to a person who has apprehended for an arrest?
- What is Anticipatory Bail?
Parties Contention
Petitioner
- The petitioner had pleaded in the court that he hold a ministerial position in the department with his colleagues so that he must be granted anticipatory bail for the accusation and the arrest that must happen in the future event.
- With that the concerned have appropriate right over the matter to grant anticipatory bail depending upon the facts and conditions of the case.
- The bail denial lead to the violation of his personal right and liberty that was guaranteed under the constitution of India. As the framework needs to be examined according to the unreasonable grounds.
Defendant
- The defendant has denied the accusations on the basis of illogicalness and aggravating statements. And considering the position and status of the individual while granting anticipatory bail is totally unreasonable.
Judgement
- The plea and the applications at the Supreme court were stand to be cancelled or disposed off. And with that Supreme Court held that granting of anticipatory bail must be a discreationary power to the Higher Courts when the need arises.
- Dual protection must be provided to the system so that there should not be any kind of misuse of the power.
- The individual must have reasonable ground to apply for anticipatory bail to apprehend the arrest. The offence should not be a non- bailable offence.
Rule of Law
The basic rule of law was applied here that the section 438 of CrPC grant bail but does not have any link with the position or the authority of the individual. Exceptional cases were also tolerated with logical argument.
Comment
According to my personal analysis, the authority of an Individual should not be considered superior in any matter or aspect and the law must prevail same for everyone.
Conclusion
To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision that the section 438 of CrPC must provide anticipatory bail but keeping in mind some major factors to get it proven that the offence is applicable at the event of arrest major factors to get it proven that the offence is applicable at the event of arrest.