Case Note & Summary
The applicants, Shrenik Jayantilal Jain and Neena Shrenik Jain, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai. The learned Sessions Judge, by order dated 19th April 2014, refused to grant interim protection pending hearing of the anticipatory bail application. Aggrieved, the applicants approached the Bombay High Court seeking interim bail until the final decision on their anticipatory bail application (No. 754 of 2014) pending before the Sessions Judge. During submissions, the applicants' counsel argued that when an application for anticipatory bail is preferred, the Sessions Court or High Court must either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order granting anticipatory bail, and there is no third option to adjourn the application without granting interim relief. This proposition raised a question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 438 CrPC. The High Court noted that Section 438 CrPC was amended by the State of Maharashtra vide Act 24 of 1993 with effect from 28.7.1993, providing for grant of interim relief. The court reproduced the amended provision, which states that the court may, after considering certain factors, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail. The court held that the language of the section is clear and unambiguous, leaving no scope for adjournment without interim protection. The court emphasized that the provision mandates a prompt decision, either rejection or interim relief, and does not permit the court to adjourn the matter without granting any protection. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the application and granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants until the disposal of their anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Anticipatory Bail - Section 438 CrPC - Power to Adjourn - The court held that under Section 438 CrPC, as amended in Maharashtra, the court has only two options: either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order granting anticipatory bail. There is no third option to adjourn the application without granting any interim relief. The court cannot postpone the hearing without protecting the applicant from arrest. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sessions Court or High Court, while entertaining an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, has the power to adjourn the application without granting interim protection to the applicant/accused.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the application and granted interim anticipatory bail to the applicants until the disposal of their anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court.
Law Points
- Section 438 CrPC mandates either rejection or grant of interim anticipatory bail forthwith
- no adjournment without interim relief
