Supreme Court says ‘law does not account for all the complexities of life’

A Supreme Court judgment mentioned an accused denied anticipatory bail can, in distinctive circumstances, nonetheless be given safety from fast arrest if his sudden incarceration by the State will plunge his private affairs and household into disaster.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana mentioned the black-and-white of the written textual content of legislation did not present for all the gray spots in human life.

Chief Justice Ramana, in the judgment pronounced on Friday, underscored the “reality that no law or rule can possibly account for the complexities of life, and the infinite range of circumstances that may arise in the future”.

Caregiver or sole breadwinner

An accused, apart from being an accused, can also be the main caregiver or sole breadwinner of the household. His arrest might depart his family members in a state of hunger and neglect.

In such “exceptional” circumstances, Chief Justice Ramana noticed that courts had the energy to permit an accused, whereas dismissing his anticipatory bail plea, to retain his private liberty for “some time” — the shortest length fairly required — in an effort to make preparations for his household earlier than surrendering in the trial courtroom.

Chief Justice Ramana urged judges to pay equal consideration to the humane aspect of prison legislation whereas listening to pleas for anticipatory bail. The grant or rejection of bail in such circumstances had a direct bearing on the basic proper to life and liberty of a person. The idea of anticipatory bail germinated from Article 21 of the Constitution. At instances, courts might must look past the strict confines of the written textual content to safe full justice. The High Courts and the Supreme Court had the powers to take action.

“Even when not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to an accused, there may be circumstances where the High Court is of the opinion that it is necessary to protect the person apprehending arrest for some time, due to exceptional circumstances, until they surrender before the trial court. For example, the applicant may plead protection for some time as he/she is the primary caregiver or breadwinner of his/her family members, and needs to make arrangements for them,” Chief Justice Ramana wrote.

However, he mentioned courts ought to not use this discretion to grant “judicial largesse” to accused individuals. That was the sort of energy no courtroom possessed.

“The discretionary power cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner,” Chief Justice Ramana cautioned.

The anticipatory bail provision of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeks to stability the rights of accused with the issues of the investigating company, the sufferer of the alleged crime and the society at giant.

“Therefore, such an order [to grant protection from arrest despite denying anticipatory bail] must necessarily be narrowly tailored to protect the interests of the applicant [accused] while taking into consideration the concerns of the investigating authority. Such an order must be a reasoned one,” the judgment mentioned.