Menu

Case Comment DHANRAJ ASWANI VS. AMAR S. MULCHANDANI (2024 INSC 669)

Case Comment, Publications

The Amicus Qriae 

Durgapur, WB, India 

Email: theamikusqriae@gmail.com

***

Case: DHANRAJ ASWANI VS. AMAR S. MULCHANDANI (2024 INSC 669)

Date: 09th Sep, 2024

Court: The Supreme Court of India 

Criminal Appeal No. 2501 of 2024

Hon’ble Judge(s) :-

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, (CJI), J.B Pardiwala, and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Introduction

The supreme court of India’s Judgement in Dhanraj Aswani v. Amar s. Mulchandani (2024 INSC 669) addresses a critical and contentious issue in criminal jurisprudence: the maintainability of an anticipatory bail application under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (CrPC), by an accused who is already in judicial custody in connection with a different case. This case has significant implication for the scope and application of anticiporaty bail, shedding light on divergent interpretations by various High Courts and establishing a unified stance by the apex court.

Fact of Case 

  1. Arrest and Custody: 

Respondent Amar S. Mulchandani was arrested in connection with ECIR No. 10 of 2021.

  1. Anticipatory Bail Application:

Mulchandani applied for anticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court regarding CRNo. 806 of 2019.

  1. Appellant’s Objection:

The appellant argued that since Mulchandani was already in custody for ECIR No. 806 of 2019. 

  1.  Court’s ruling:

The High Court overruled the appellant’s objection.

The court clarified that being in custody for one case does not bar a person from seeking anticipatory bail in a different case.

  1. Legal interpretation: 

The court emphasized that under the CrPC, a person in custody for one case cannot be arrested for another case without due process.

If anticipatory bail is granted, it becomes affective only if the person is arrested in connection with the specific case for which bail was sought.

  1. Current Appeal:

Since the objection was overruled, the appellant has now approached this Court through Criminal Appeal No. 20502/2024.

Issue of Case 

  1. Central Issue:

 The key question is whether an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is maintainable when the accused is already in judicial custody for a different offence.

  1. Legal question: 

Can an accused, while in custody for one case, seek pre-arrest bail in another non-bailable offence if he has a “reason to believe” that he may be arrested in that separate case?

  1. Case background:

The respondent was already in judicial custody for one offence.

He anticipated arrest in another case and sought anticipatory bail.

  1. Legal principle: 

The provision for anticipatory bail is designed to safeguard an individual’s right to liberty, even if multiple legal proceedings are ongoing.

Arguments 

Appellant’s Argument:

The appellant contended that anticipatory bail is intended to prevent the arrest of a person who is not yet in custody. Therefore, a person already in judicial custody for one offence should not be permitted to seek anticipatory bail for another offence.

Pre-condition of “reason to believe”: The appellant contended that the fundamental requirement for invoking Section 438 is the applicant’s “reason to believe “they may be arrested. If already in custody, this belief is unfounded, rendering the anticipatory bail application non-maintainable. 

Compliance with Section 438(2)(i): An individual in custody cannot comply with conditions like making themselves available for interrogation, as mandated by section 438(2)(i). Granting anticipatory bail in such scenarios would be illogical impractical.

Respondent’s Arguments:

The respondent argued that the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution. He argued that being in custody for one offence dose not eliminates the apprehension of arrest for another, distinct offence. Therefore, the right to seek anticipatory bail remains intact. He also pointed out that there is no explicit restriction in Section 438 of the CrPC preventing an individual in custody for one case from seeking anticipatory bail in another. 

Furthermore, Mulchandani asserted that the courts have the discretion to impose appropriate conditions to ensure compliance, even if the applicant is in custody for a different matter. 

Legal Reasoning 

  1. The court examined the legislative intent behind Section 438 of the CrPC, emphasizing its purpose in protecting personal liberty from unjust arrests.
  2. The Supreme Court criticized certain Bombay High court ruling that suggested custody in one case invalidates the “reasonable belief” needed for anticipatory bail in another case.
  3. The apex court stressed that anticipatory bail acts as a preventive mechanism to shield individuals from harassment and injustice, particularly in cases involving multiple FIRs against the same person.
  4. The court clarified that no statutory bar in Section 438 or any other law prevents courts from considering anticipatory bail applications, even if the accused is in custody for a different case.
  5. The interpretation ensures that an individual’s right to liberty is not unfairly restricted.

Defects of Law

The case highlighted an ambiguity in the CrPC regarding the eligibility of individuals in custody to seek anticipatory bail for separates offences. This lack of clarity had led to inconsistent interpretations across various High Courts, underscoring the need for a definitive ruling to ensure uniform application of the law.

Rationale 

  1. Anticipatory Bail & Judicial Custody:

The Supreme Court ruled that an individual already in judicial custody for one case can still seek anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC for a separate, unrelated offense.

  1. No automatic custody transfer: 

If a police officer arrests someone already in judicial custody for another offense the person remains in judicial custody and does not come under police custody automatically.

  1. Protection of Personal Liberty: 

The court emphasized that every fresh arrest impacts an individual’s dignity and reputation, reinforcing the protection of personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

  1. Legal Procedure & Formal Arrest:

The Judgment clarified that a formal arrest can still be made for procedural reasons, but it does not mean the accused will be handed over to police custody.

  1. Fairness in criminal Proceedings:

The ruling ensures that accused individuals are not deprived of their legal rights simply because they are already in custody for another matter.

Inference 

The Supreme Court’s decision establishes that: 

  1. Maintainability: An individual in judicial custody for one offence can apply for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the CrPC for a different offence.
  2. Judicial Discretion: Courts possess the discretion to impose specific conditions to ensure compliance with section 438(2)(i), even when the applicant is in custody for another case.
  3. Harmonizing rights and procedures: The ruling harmonizes the right to personal liberty with procedural requirement, ensuring that statutory protections like anticipatory bail remain accessible without undermining the justice system’s integrity.  

The judgement in Dhanraj Aswani V. Amar S. Mulchandani & Anr. Provides clarity on the applicability of anticipatory bail provisions, reinforcing the judiciary’s role in safeguarding individual liberties while ensuring procedural compliance. This decision serves as a precedent for future cases, guiding courts in balancing the rights of individuals against the imperatives of law enforcement.

*****

Intern Details:- 

Name: Rahal Kumar

College: Rps Law College, Patna 

Pursuing: In 1st year

Email: rahul03kumar.3@gmail.com

Mobile: 7061194818