The Supreme Court of India has highlighted the need for caution while granting ad-interim relief in anticipatory bail applications. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, expressed concern over the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision to offer interim protection to accused individuals in the midst of an ongoing investigation.
The case in question arose from a challenge to the High Court's order, which had allowed the accused to join the investigation while their anticipatory bail application was still under consideration. In addition, the High Court had granted that in the event of the accused's arrest, they would be released on ad-interim bail, subject to conditions set by the investigating officer.
The Supreme Court, while issuing a stay on the High Court's order, disapproved of the nature of the relief granted, noting that it was “practically in the nature of granting the final relief” before the anticipatory bail application was decided. The Court emphasized that such ad-interim measures could have significant legal implications, particularly in cases where serious allegations such as criminal misappropriation, cheating, and forgery are involved.
The Court observed: “There is no point in asking the accused to go before the investigating officer pending the final disposal of the anticipatory bail application before the High Court and further saying that in the event of arrest he shall be released on ad-interim bail. Such ad-interim reliefs have their own legal implications.”
The Supreme Court reiterated that the decision to grant anticipatory bail lies within the Court's discretion, and it must consider the merits of the case. It further explained that when granting anticipatory bail, especially in serious matters, courts must be cautious, as premature protection could obstruct the investigation process and potentially lead to a miscarriage of justice.
In alignment with its stance, the Court referred to a previous judgment in Srikant Upadhyay & Ors. v. State of Bihar (2024), where it was observed that “while called upon to exercise the said power, the Court concerned has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.”
Additionally, the Supreme Court issued specific directions in this case, urging the High Court to expedite the hearing of all anticipatory bail applications by January 7, 2025, and to ensure the accused persons remain present for the proceedings. The Court also clarified that its intervention was solely due to the nature of the ad-interim relief granted by the High Court and did not express an opinion on the merits of the prosecution's case.
The Court concluded: “We have already held that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power...and such orders shall be passed in eminently fit cases.”
Picture Source :
