High Court Refers Anticipatory Bail Maintainability Issue to Larger Bench

A batch of anticipatory bail applications came before the High Court, raising a common objection regarding maintainability. The objection relied on the ruling in Asheesh Kumar v. State of U.P., which held that anticipatory bail is not maintainable in complaint cases once summons are issued, as there is no apprehension of arrest.

The applicants argued that this view conflicts with Supreme Court judgments such as Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar and Directorate of Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajan. They contended that even after summons, an accused may still face custody upon appearing before the court, especially in serious offences, thereby justifying the need for anticipatory bail.

Issue Raised: Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable in complaint cases after issuance of summons, in light of conflicting judicial views and Supreme Court precedents.

High Court Held: The Court observed that the earlier ruling in Asheesh Kumar may not be in line with binding Supreme Court law, which permits grant of anticipatory bail even after cognizance or filing of charge-sheet. It noted that the distinction between “arrest” and “custody” drawn in the earlier judgment was flawed, as an accused appearing before a court may still be taken into judicial custody, creating a real apprehension of arrest. Therefore the recurring nature of the issue and conflicting interpretations, the Court held that the matter requires clarity from a Larger Bench. Thus, the question was referred for authoritative determination. Interim protection granted to the applicants was directed to continue until further orders.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below