Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia

Name: Thota. Mamatha Naidu/PRN- 20010422166

CITATION-
AIR 1980 SC 1632

BENCH-
Y.V Chandrachud, C.J . AND P.N BHAGAWATI, N.L. UNTWALIA, R.S. PATHAK AND
O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.

INTRODUCTION:

A significant court case involving the Indian notion of "Anticipatory Bail" is Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab. As a result, the phrase "anticipatory bail" has never been stated in
any Indian legislation. Nonetheless, bail in anticipation of arrest is allowed by Section 438 of
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). In accordance with this clause, in the event
of an arrest, a person who believes they may have committed a crime for which bail is not an
option may apply to the high court or a session's court for bail. He can apply for bail and the
judge might approve it or deny it. Particularly in this instance, it is very important because the
Constitutional Bench established eight rules that the High Courts and Sessions Courts must
adhere to when using their authority to approve or deny anticipatory bail. Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud presided over the five-judge panel, which also included Justices P.N. Bhagwati,
N.L. Untwalia, R.S. Pathak, and O. Chinnappa Reddy. This initiative tries to critically
evaluate and offer commentary on the claims and ruling in this particular case.

BACKGROUND: -
FACTS:
The appellant, Mr. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia, served as the Government of Punjab's Minister of
Irrigation and Electricity during the Congress administration. He and a few others were being
accused of major corruption and abuses of authority. The minister anticipates being arrested
along with the other appellants. Before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the appellants
filed a request for anticipatory bail pursuant to Section 438 of the Code. They requested that,
in the case of an arrest based on the charges, the HC order that the appellants be freed on bail.
The application was denied by the High Court's full bench, but the Supreme Court approved
it after granting special permission to appeal.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the section 437 & 438 of the CrPC grants bail to a person who has
apprehended for an arrest?
2. Who can apply for Anticipatory Bail?

The Law contains provisions for the granting of bail to a person anticipating an arrest
under Sections 437 and 438. The occasions or circumstances under which bail may be
granted for an offence that is not subject to bail are described in Section 437. Whereas
Section 438 relates to the rules for granting bail to someone anticipating an arrest.

In accordance with Section 437, a person who has been held without a warrant on
suspicion of committing a non-bailable offence may be released on bail if the court or
investigating officer finds probable cause to believe that the suspect has not
committed a non-bailable offence but grounds for further investigation into his guilt.
The clauses are accompanied by a few riders that specify the circumstances under
which bail cannot be granted.

The questions of "who can apply for anticipatory bail?" "who is it to be applied to?"
"what are the requirements that must be taken into account while granting an
anticipatory bail?" and "who can grant bail in specific circumstances" are all
addressed in Section 438. A person who anticipates arrest on grounds of suspicion or
accusation of committing a crime for which there is no possibility of a bond may
submit an anticipatory bail application to the High Court or the Session's court, in
accordance with this provision.
In the case of Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, the clauses' intent was made very
plain. In this instance, the court made it clear that anticipatory bail will not be granted
in accordance with section 438 until and until the allegations clearly demonstrate the
likelihood of the accused's dishonouring himself.

RULES:
The fundamental legal principle—according to which bail may be granted under section 438
of the CrPC without regard to the person's position or authority—was applied in this case.
With a good argument, exceptional cases were also accepted.

ANALYSIS:
Due to its extraordinary nature, the Whole Bench's decision to restrict the use of section 438
to just exceptional circumstances was impeding the delivery of justice and equality under the
law. If such a limitation or restriction was placed on the use of discretionary powers under
Section-438, a person falsely accused of a non-bailable offence would not have any relief.
Additionally, the term "extraordinary cases" was ambiguous because the whole bench did not
state under what circumstances the employment of the powers granted by Section 438 was
permitted. The Constitutional Bench's judgement to reject this claim was reasonable and
favoured equity as a result. Additionally, the decision of the Constitutional bench to place
limitations on anticipatory bail in order to facilitate effective inquiry is a better precedent than
the judgement of the High Court's Whole Bench, which suggested that the power under 438
should not be used at all. This restricted the person's ability to exercise their right to personal
liberty and to obtain a bail warrant, which infringed under Article 21 of the Basic Rights.
The criteria for interim bail and the restrictions on the application of an anticipatory bail offer
the courts the freedom to decide cases in accordance with their judgement and prevent the
generalisation of laws that impedes the criminal justice system's operation.
The constitutional bench's position that knowledgeable judges of High courts and Sessions
courts can make good decisions due to their extensive experience in the issue is rational, and
even if they make a decision that violates Article 21, it can still be subjected to judicial
review and amendment. Yet, Anticipatory bail differs significantly from a regular bail in its
approach. There is uncertainty in this case because the applicant for anticipatory bail is not
being held in any type of custody, either state or private.
Under the assumption that an arrest is imminent, anticipatory bail is an issue that is brought
before the court. As of right now, the situation is not criminal in any way. This contradicts the
point of granting investigation authority to these agencies or officers and denies the
investigating officers and/or agency the ability to work on the case. The court will then
interfere with the police's authority and operations as a result.

JUDGEMENT:
The Supreme Court had the option of cancelling the plea and dismissing the applications. The
Supreme Court then ruled that the Higher Courts must have discretionary jurisdiction to issue
anticipatory bail where necessary.
The system must have dual protection in place in order to prevent any power misuse.
To seek for anticipatory bail to avoid the arrest, the person must have a good reason. The
crime should not be subject to bail.

CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, it should not be assumed that the clauses in Section 438 of the Criminal
Procedure Code contain anything delicate that needs to be handled with extreme care and
caution. The negative and hazardous effects that Section 438 use is expected to have must be
addressed by judicious use of the judicial power. Because every case has unique facts and
circumstances and cannot be decided using the same rules, there cannot be rigid guidelines
for the granting or rejecting of anticipatory bail. Nor should there be any attempt to offer such
rules in this regard. The courts are required to recognise and uphold this legislative directive
in any case. Anticipatory bail is a tool to protect someone's liberty; it is not a licence to
commit crimes or a defence against any form of charge, no matter how likely.