The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of
the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail
is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Gudikanti Narasimhulu case
Arrests are generally made to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial
and thereafter, if found guilty, for sentencing him. However, if there are no
sufficient grounds to believe that the accused will flee from justice, interfere
with the course of the investigation, tamper the evidence, misuses his liberty
in similar criminal offence, etc, then the rule is BAIL NOT JAIL i.e. the
accused shall be released on bail thus upholding his right to life and personal
liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
The bail which is granted even before the person is arrested is called
Anticipatory or expectant bail. It is a safeguard against the complete capture
when a person has a reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation
of having committed a non-bailable offence.
The necessity of granting an expectant bail arises because powerful people
attempt to implicate their opponents in false charges and detain them in jail
for some days. However, the term Anticipatory bail
is a misnomer as it represents an inefficacy that bail
may be granted by the competent court in the apprehension of arrest and when a
court grants anticipatory bail, it merely issues a direction to release a person
on bail to avoid undue harassment of the blamed person(s) by pre-trial detention
and such order becomes operational only upon arrest or thereafter. Thus,
anticipatory bail or expectant bail is a term for conveniently conveying that it
is possible to apply for bail in anticipation of arrest.
The concept of bail can be traced back to 399 B.C., when the Greece Philosopher
Plato filled an application of bail for his teacher Socrates and created a bond
for release of his teacher. The modern system of bail evolved from England. In
the circuit courts structural system, the number of cases was very high due to
which, the accused has to wait for months for their trial in unhygienic and
unhealthy conditions due to which government was compelled to release the
accused persons by securing surety, which remains forfeited in case of
non-availability of the accused.
During the Mughal rule, traces have found regarding the institution of
anticipatory bail. Under Mughal law, the principle of 'justice delayed is
justice denied? can be seen where an interim release could be initiated by the
consideration that if justice is denied in any case then the judge himself needs
to bear the losses sustained by the aggrieved party due to such delay.
The British common law system has also shown the practice of bail. In that
system of law, two forms of bails prevailed for release of a person in custody,
known as muchalka and zamanat. After the changed status of British India to an
Independent Republic India, administrators of law and justice are mandated to
function in a manner that the constitutional equilibrium between the 'freedom of
and the 'interests of social order'
are maintained effectively [i]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not contain any express provision
relating to section 438 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. There
was a conflict of opinion about the power of the court to grant Anticipatory
Bail. There are a number of cases where anticipatory bail was not granted.
In Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Prasad
(1963),[ii]the High Court did not
grant anticipatory bail on the ground that the dictionary meaning of the word bail
is to set free or to liberate a person on security being given for his
appearance. The Court observed that bail requires custody and if there is no
custody, then there cannot be any bail.
The Privy Council in Emperor v. Nazir
[iii] stated that just as it is essential that every person should have free
access to a court of justice, so it is of the utmost importance that the
judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their
area. It was further stated that if the court grants anticipatory bail, it
interferes with the functioning of the police. Hence, anticipatory bail was not
Prior to the provision of Anticipatory bail, many innocent people who have been
implicated for an offence by their innocence rivals would spend a number of days
in jail. It was required in order to prevent the violation of a person's
liberty. According to Blackstone's formulation in criminal law-It is better
that ten guilty persons escape than the one innocent suffer
. Thus in order to
prevent unnecessary detention and to preserve a person's liberty, it was
necessary to introduce such a provision.
The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report dated September 24, 1969,
recommended the introduction of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure
empowering only the High Court and the Court of Session to grant Anticipatory
It observed in paragraph 39.9 of its report (Volume I) that[iv]:
The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his
arrest (commonly known as anticipatory bail
) was carefully considered by us.
Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a court to
grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under
the existing provisions of the Code.
The necessity for granting anticipatory
bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their
rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes
by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the
accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady
Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a
person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his
liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to
submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.
In paragraph 31 of its 48th Report (July, 1972) the Law Commission recommended
acceptance of the suggestion and made the following comments on the aforesaid
The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This is
substantially in accordance with the recommendation made by the previous
Commission. We agree that this would be a useful addition, though we must add
that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised.
We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put
to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners, the final order should be
made only after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The initial order should only
be an interim one. Further, the relevant section should make it clear that the
direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded, and if the court is
satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interests of justice. It
will also be convenient to provide that notice of the interim order as well as
of the final orders will be given to the Superintendent of Police forthwith
The Law Commission, however, warned that it is in very exceptional cases that
such a power should be exercised. There should be a reasonable cause and ground
for grant of anticipatory bail.
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
(1977[vi]) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Before power under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code is exercised, the
Court must be satisfied that the applicant invoking the provision has reason to
believe that he is likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence and that
belief must be founded on reasonable grounds.
Mere fear is not belief, for
which reason, it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort
of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him,
in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds, on which the belief of
the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must
be capable of being examined by the Court objectively. Specific events and facts
must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge of the
reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the
exercise of the power conferred by the Section.
Statutory Framework Of Anticipatory Bail
The whole framework of anticipatory bail law has been revised by the Amending
Act of 2005.
Section 438 reads as follows:
438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation
of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or
the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of
such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into
consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely:
- the nature and gravity of the accusation;
- the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has
previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any
- the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and.
- where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or
humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested,
either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant
of anticipatory bail:
Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of
Session, has not passed any interim order under this Sub-Section or has rejected
the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an
officer-in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant
on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.
(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-Section (1), it shall
forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a
copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent
of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of
being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court,
(1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory
at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by
the Court if, on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court
considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under
subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light
of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including:
- a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
- a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
- a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous
permission of the Court;
- such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-Section (3) of section
437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in
charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the
time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail,
he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such
offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that
person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of
the Court under Sub-Section (1).
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any
person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of
section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian
Reason To Believe: When can a person have a reason to believe?
This expression is the lifeline of section 438, Cr.P.C. as the anticipatory bail
can not be granted unless the applicant shows that he has a reasonable reason to
suspect that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief
'otherwise the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as
high as the adult population. It is not enough for an applicant to show that he
has some vague and general apprehension that someone is going to accuse him of
some non-bailable offence.
The grounds on which the belief is based must be
capable of being examined by the court objectively because it is the sole basis
to determine whether the applicant has a reason to believe that he may be
arrested. This is an extraordinary provision which must be exercised cautiously;
it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any or
all kinds of accusation, likely or unlikely[vii]
State Amendments Regarding Anticipatory Bail [viii]
In the State of Uttar Pradesh, until recently, the provision of anticipatory
bail was not applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh by inserting Section 9 of
the criminal procedure (Uttar Pradesh) Amendment Act, 1976. However, the state
government has reintroduced the provision of anticipatory bail and revived S.
438 Cr.P.C. in U.P. The Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh
Amendment) Bill, 2018 was approved by the President on June 1, 2019, and has
been brought into effect.
In the State of Maharashtra, by the judgment of Siddharam Satilingappa[ix],
Supreme Court has finally held and observed that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not
mention anything about any duration to which direction on release of bail in the
event of his arrest can be granted.
The order granting anticipatory bail is a
direction, specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his
arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused
and he is released on bail, the concerned court would be justified in imposing
conditions on him, including direction to join investigation. Once the accused
is released on bail by the trial court, then it could be unreasonable to compel
the accused to surrender before trial court and again apply for anticipatory bail[x].
In the State of West Bengal, the substitution was made in sub-section (1) of
- When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an
accusation of' having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High
Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the
event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail:
Provided that the mere fact that a person has applied to the High Court or the
Court of' Session for a direction under this section shall not, in the absence
of any order by that court, be a bar to the apprehension of such person, or the
detention of such person in custody, by an officer-in-charge of a police
- The appropriate court shall dispose of an application for a direction
under this sub-section within thirty days of the date of such application
and, no final order shall be made on offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven
years without giving the State not less than seven days' notice to present
- If any person is arrested and detained in custody by an
officer-in-charge of a police station before the disposal of the application
of such person for a direction under this subsection, the release of such
person on bail by a court having jurisdiction, pending such disposal shall
be subject to the provisions of section 437.
(1) (A) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act or in any judgment,
decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority[xi].
In the State of Andhra Pradesh, Anticipatory bail is a misnomer as it is not
bail presently granted in anticipation of arrest. When the Court grants
anticipatory bail what it does is to make an order in the event of arrest, a
person shall be released on bail[xii].
In the State of Orissa, the proviso shall be added to sub-section (1) of section
438, which says that where the apprehended accusation relates to an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not
less than seven years, no final order shall be made on such application without
giving the State notice to present its case[xiii].
Need For Anticipatory Bail:
Human Rights and Indian Constitution
The concept of anticipatory bail is based on the fundamental right to Life and
personal liberty' of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution and the principles of natural justice. When an arrest is made, it
totally deprives a person of his 'personal liberty' and the freedom of movement
and locomotion are confined within the four walls of Police cell or prison
walls. And therefore the court should not impose any unreasonable or unfair
conditions on the individual's right to obtain an order of anticipatory bail.
The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a valuable right,
and hence should not be lightly inferred with[xiv].
While dealing with right to
bail in the light of Artice 21, one is reminded of Charles Dickens novel 'A Tale
of Two Cities' in which Dr. Manette was incarcerated in the Bastille for 18
years on a mere letter de cachet of a French aristocrat, although he was
innocent.' In AK.Goplan case[xv]," the Supreme Court observed, 'personal
liberty' includes not only immunity from arrest and detention but also other
freedom of speech, association, etc: ,.. "it consists of freedom of movement and
In Kharak Singh case
[xvi], the Supreme Court ruled that personal
under Article 21 includes all varieties of freedom except those
included in Art 19. A contrary view was taken in Menaka Gandhi case
wherein it was held that personal liberty
includes all possible rights which
go to constitute personal liberty including Article 19. In the State of Andhra
Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy
[xviii]," the Supreme Court held, Right to
is one of the basic human rights and not even the State has the authority
to violate the right and as explained in Khadat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath's
[xix], if dignity or honor vanishes
nothing remains in life.
Hence, the concept of anticipatory bail is synonymous with Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution as it safeguards the personal freedom and liberty of an
individual against unnecessary detention and arrest irrespective of the fact
that the person is an accused thus upholding the concept of innocent until proven
. Howsoever, it is not an essential ingredient of Article 21 since it was
conferred long after the enforcement of the constitution.
Anticipatory bail is a
solution to all those issues which arose in the wake of political rivalry and
could not be resolved using law of torts.
The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre v. State of Maharashtra
(2010)[xx] observed that:
116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be
curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case.
It further gave the following suggestions, which might help not in the
curtailment of personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner:
- Direct the accused to join the investigation and only when the accused
does not cooperate with the investigating agency then only the accused must
- Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as title
deeds of properties or fixed deposit receipts/share certificates of the
- Direct the accused to execute bonds;
- The accused may be directed to furnish securities of a number of persons
which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the
- The accused should be directed to furnish an undertaking that he would
not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of
tampering the evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be
- Bank accounts be frozen for the small duration during the investigation.
Jurisdiction Of The Courts To Grant Anticipatory Bail
The power to grant anticipatory bail is entrusted only to the higher echelons of
judicial service, i.e. to Sessions Court and the High Court having jurisdiction
over the locale of the commission of the offence of which the person is
The place of residence or apprehension of arrest may not give jurisdiction.[xxii] Although section 438 gives concurrent power to High Court
and Sessions Court, it is normally presumed that the Session Court would be
first approached for the grant of anticipatory bail unless an adequate case for
not approaching it is made out.[xxiii] It has also been held that it is not
always necessary to approach the Session Judge first.[xxiv]
It has also been
held that if the petition for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the
Sessions Court, the petitioner cannot approach the High Court asking for
anticipatory bail on the same grounds.[xxv]
The Bombay High Court[xxvi] has
ruled that the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court would
not be a bar for the High Court to entertain a similar application based on the
same grounds and facts.
But if the application is rejected by the High Court
and, thereafter a subsequent application cannot be entertained by the Sessions Court[xxvii]. An applicant can file an application for grant of anticipatory
bail in a court within whose jurisdiction he apprehends his capture even though
the First Information Report (F.I.R) might have been registered at a place
within the jurisdiction of another High Court/ Sessions Court.[xxviii] Even if
the Courts do not have the territorial Jurisdiction, they may entertain the
application for grant of anticipatory bail after considering the facts and
circumstances therein and grant the anticipatory bail for a short term with
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra)
, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court
held that anticipatory law should not be time-bound. The very basis of this law
is to ensure personal liberty. With the application of time- based limitation,
this purpose of the law is defeated. [xxix]
However, the Court in its subsequent judgments took the opposite direction. It
held anticipatory bail to be time-bound.
In Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
[xxx], the Supreme Court
observed that anticipatory bail orders should be of limited duration only and
after the expiry of such duration it should be left at the discretion of the
original court to deal with the matter. It further observed that the court
dealing with the matter should decide whether the person is entitled to bail on
the basis of evidence collected. This decision was upheld in KL Verma Case[xxxi].
In this case, the Court observed that:
anticipatory bail is granted in
anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but that does not mean that the
regular court, which is to try the offender, is sought to be bypassed. It was,
therefore, pointed out that it was necessary that such anticipatory bail orders
should be of limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration
or extended duration the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the
regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed
before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is
By this, what the Court desired to convey was that an order of
anticipatory bail does not ensure till the end of the trial but it must be of
limited duration as the regular court cannot be bypassed. The limited duration
must be determined having regard to the facts of the case and the need to give
the accused sufficient time to move the regular court for bail and to give the
regular court sufficient time to determine the bail application.
In other words,
till the bail application is disposed of one way or the other the court may
allow the accused to remain on anticipatory bail. To put it differently,
anticipatory bail may be granted for a duration which may extend to the date on
which the bail application is disposed of or even a few days thereafter to
enable the accused persons to move the higher court, if they so desire.
This decision was not intended to convey that as soon as the accused persons are
produced before the regular court the anticipatory bail ends even if the court
is yet to decide the question of bail on merits.
This decision of the Supreme Court was further followed in Sunita Devi v. State
of Bihar and Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal.
However in the case Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
(supra), the Supreme Court
observed that the decision of Sibbia (supra) was not bought to the notice of
bench in Salauddin, thus rendering it and other cases which followed its
decision, per-incuriam. The Court held that directing the accused to surrender
to custody after the limited period amounts to deprivation of his personal
liberty. The Court laid down that once the anticipatory bail is granted then the
protection should ordinarily be available till the end of trial, unless the
interim protection by way of anticipatory bail is curtailed such as:
- when the anticipatory bail granted is cancelled by the Court on finding
fresh material or circumstance; and
- on the ground of abuse of the indulgence by the accused.
The Court further stated that limiting the duration of anticipatory bail for a
particular period is not valid, as no such statutory restriction exists[xxxii].
Thus the Court held that the life of an order of anticipatory bail should not be
This question of the duration of Anticipatory Bail order has again come up in
Sushila Aggarwal Case of 2018.
The Court has referred it to a larger bench
- Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C should be
limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the
Trial Court and seek regular bail.
- Whether the life of anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage
when the accused is summoned by the court. [xxxiii]
Until the issue is taken up by the larger bench, it can be assumed that the
decision observed in Sibbia and Mehtre is the true position of law. This is
mainly due to the fact that the view taken in Salauddin case
was held per-incuriam.
Normally, anticipatory bail is not for a limited period and unless it is
restricted, anticipatory bail continues till the end of the trial, unless
revoked or cancelled.
Anticipatory bail, as the name suggests, is granted before a person is arrested
but not necessarily after the registration of FIR. If a person apprehends that
he might be arrested, he may apply for an Anticipatory Bail. Ordinary Bail, on
the other hand, is applied for by a person after his arrest. Since he has
already been arrested and in the custody of the police, he has to apply for
The provisions relating to Anticipatory Bail are contained in Section 438 of the
Code whereas Sections 436 and 437 deals with Ordinary/Regular Bail. Anticipatory
Bail is a relatively new concept then regular bail, as prior to 1973; there were
no provisions for the same in Cr.P.C.
Another difference between Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail is that Bail under
Section 438 is only granted by the High Court or Sessions Court. However, under
Sections 436 and 437, it can be granted by any Judicial Magistrate or Court.
Bail is ordinarily granted as a matter of right in case of bailable offence and
it may also be granted in non-bailable offences under Section 437 of the Code,
but the power to grant anticipatory bail is of an extraordinary character which
is to be used by the Court sparingly.
There is no specific section which deals with cancellation of anticipatory bail.
In State of Maharashtra v. Vishwas Shripati Patil,
it was held Section 438 has
implicit power to cancel the bail. It can also be cancelled under Section 439(2)
of the Code. However, there is a specific power to cancel bail under Sections
437(5) and 439(2) of the Code.
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab
the Supreme Court held that:
The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory
bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means
release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of
arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest. Police custody
is an inevitable concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences.
An order of
anticipatory bail constitutes, so to say, an insurance against police custody
following upon arrest for offence or offences in respect of which the order is
issued. In other words, unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest
legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is
thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is
issued; he shall be released on bail[xxxiv].
Anticipatory Bail is only granted in cases of non-bailable offence, but it is
not necessary that the offence has to be a cognizable one. There is no provision
for blanket anticipatory bail, neither in Section 438 nor in any other provision
of the Code. This Section has to be read with Section 437 as all the limitations
imposed in Section 437 are implicit in Section 438.
Judges have the power to
apply their discretion in granting of anticipatory bail, but the Judge even
when he is free, is still not wholly free
[xxxv], as this discretion shall not
be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for
life unless the court at the very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears
to be false or groundless.
Further, this discretion should not be exercised in
cases of dowry deaths, and economic offence involving corruption at the higher
political and executive levels. The court should record reasons while granting
anticipatory bail as stated in State of Maharashtra v Vishwas.
cases, where the charge-sheet has been filed and the non-bailable warrant has
been issued by the Magistrate, the anticipatory bail can be granted [xxxvi]. The
basis for granting Anticipatory Bail should not be different for different
people, mason and millionaire should be treated alike and therefore the status
in life, and affluence should not affect the order for grant of anticipatory
bail. Anticipatory Bail can be granted after the issue of the process by the
Trial Court. [xxxvii]
The issuance of summons for appearance entitles an accused
to apply for anticipatory bail.[xxxviii] But there could be no order granting
anticipatory bail after the person is arrested[xxxix]. If there are sufficient
reasons to believe that the complainant is biased, he should not be heard while
considering the request for anticipatory bail[xl].All in all, One ought not to
make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail[xli].
Written By: Aastha Khanna
- D. C. Pandey, Release on Bail: Law and practice (The bail system),
available at http://220.127.116.11:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/671/9/The%20Bail%20System.pdf
visited on April 22, 2019.
- Balsara, S. (1980). BAIL NOT JAIL-EMPTY THE PRISONS. Journal of the
Indian Law Institute, 22(3), 341-350. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950698
- Balsara, S. (1980). BAIL NOT JAIL-EMPTY THE PRISONS. Journal of the
Indian Law Institute, 22(3), 341-350. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950698
- Law Commission of India 41st Report, September 1969, 'The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 Volume I', para 39.9; pp. 320-321
- Law Commission of India 48thReport,July 1972'Some question under the
Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (09.04.1980 - SC) :
- Singhal's Criminal Law Part-II (Cr. P.C.)
- IJJSR ISSN 2581-5199 Vol 1 issue 2
- (2011) 1SCC 694
- Suresh C. Gupta, Personal Liberty and Grant of Anticipatory Bail, Legal
India Legal news & law resource portal, available at https://www.legalindia.com/personal-liberty-and-grant-of-anticipatory-bail/,
visited on 22/04/2019.
- Sec 438-Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest, Blog
Legal services India, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/issues/topic1087-sec-438-direction-for-grant-of-bail-to-person-apprehending-arrest.html,
visited on 22/04/2019
- Madhubala, Anticipatory Bail, available at
visited on 22/04/2019.
- Ibid 11
- Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 753
- AIR 1950 SC P.27
- Kharak Singh v. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295
- Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and anr. (1978) 1 SCC P248 AIR 1978 SC
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and ors. AIR 2000 SC
- Khadat Mazdoor chetana Sangath v. State of MP AIR 1995 SC P31
- Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2011 SC
- Balchand Jain v. State of M.P., (1976) 4 SCC 572
- Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State, 1986 Cri LJ 605 (Pat) (FB)
- Chhajju Ram Godara v. State of Haryana, 1978 Cri LJ 608 (P&H); Usman v.
S.I. of Police, (2003) 2 KLT 594
- Y. Chandrasekhara Rao v. Kamala Kumari, 1993 Cri LJ 3508 (AP)
- Amiya Kumar v. State of W.B., 1979 Cri LJ 288 (Cal.)
- Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Cri LJ 1808 (Bom.)
- Devidas Raghu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cri LJ 252 (Bom.)
- Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1174 (Del.); Pradeep
kumarSoni v. State of M.P., 1990 Cri LJ 2055 (M.P.); Jodha Ram v. State of
Rajasthan, 1994 Cri LJ 1962 (Raj.)
- The Meandering Law on The Duration Of An Anticipatory Bail Order. Article
by Bharat Chugh and Sujoy Sur
- Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikj V State of Maharashtra (11.12.1995-SC):
- K.L. Verma vs. State and Ors. (13.10.1996 - SC) : MANU/SC/1493/1998
- A.L.T ( Criminal) JOURNAL (Vol. XLVI) (January 2012 ) (Part-1)
- The Meandering Law on The Duration Of An Anticipatory Bail Order.
Article by Bharat Chugh and Sujoy Sur
- Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (09.04.1980 - SC) :
- Benjamin Cardozo
- Puran Singh v Ajit Singh (1985) Cri LJ 897 (P&H HC), Sharvin Ahmad v
State (2003) Cri LJ 2815
- Sheik Khasim v State (1986) Cri LJ 1303 (AP HC)
- P.V. Narsimha Rao. v Delhi Admn. (1997) Cri LJ 961 (Delhi HC)
- N. K.S, M Shahul Hamid v Mohd. Ibrahim (1992) Cri LJ 227
- Indu Bala v State of Delhi (1991) Cri LJ 1774 ( Delhi HC)
- Ibid 34
(Law Centre-1, University of Delhi) & Ayushi
Gupta (Law Centre-1, University of Delhi)