Rejection of Anticipatory Bail not germane while considering Regular Bail, Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that the factum of rejection or acceptance of anticipatory bail of an accused by the High Court is “not germane” at the time of consideration of the regular bail of the accused under Section 437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973..“While considering the regular bail application of the accused under Section 437(1) Cr PC, the factum of the rejection or acceptance of the anticipatory bail application, by itself, is not germane.”, the Court has stated..However, the factors which weighed with the High Court while either rejecting or granting anticipatory bail to the accused, as are relevant post the filing of the charge sheet, may be looked at by the Court while dealing with such a regular bail application of the accused under Section 437(1) of the Code, it further explained..It reasoned that while dealing with the bail application under Section 437 (1), the court which is seized of the final report/ charge sheet would be “in a position to make a better assessment” and it should not get influenced by the conclusions drawn by the High Court while either accepting or rejecting the anticipatory bail of the accused..The judgment by a Division Bench of the High Court comprising Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice IS Mehta, was delivered in a criminal reference by a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 395(2) of the Code..The Court also held that when a charge sheet is filed before a Magistrate without the arrest of the accused, despite the rejection of his anticipatory bail application by the High Court, the Magistrate cannot examine “whether the exercise of discretion by the Investigating Officer to not arrest the accused despite rejection of his anticipatory bail application by this Court, has been properly exercised.“.The Magistrate is only concerned with the final report/ charge sheet, as filed, the Court asserted..The Court also answered the question of release of an accused on bail, charge sheeted without arrest under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code or any other offence punishable with imprisonment of life or death, in view of bar under Section 437(1)(i) of the Criminal Code..Answering the question in affirmative, the Court stated that such an accused “may be released on bail under Section 437(1) Cr PC.“.However, it must be shown that the accused is under the age of 16 years or a woman or a sick or infirm, or that there are no reasonable grounds for the Court to believe that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life..The issue as to whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 of the Code should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable him to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail, remained unanswered by the Court. .Relying on a series of judgments by the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that there are conflicting views of different Benches of the Supreme Court of equal strength on the issue. While one view suggests that anticipatory bail granted by the Court should ordinarily continue till the trial of the case, there are indications that anticipatory bail may be for a limited period..Since the issue is pending consideration before a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, the High Court observed that it did not “consider it appropriate to delve into this question of law referred for our consideration”..Advocate Sumeet Verma was appointed Amicus Curiae in the matter. He was assisted by Advocate Preeti Jakhar..State was represented by Standing Counsel Rahul Mehra with Advocate Chaitanya Gosain, and Additional Public Prosecutor Rajat Katyal..Read the Judgement: