The issue of bail is one of liberty, justice, public safety and burden of the public treasury, all of which insist that a developed jurisprudence of bail is integral to a socially sensitized judicial process.- Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Gudikanti Narasimhulu case (1977)

Arrests are generally made to ensure the presence of the accused at the trial and thereafter, if found guilty, for sentencing him. However, if there are no sufficient grounds to believe that the accused will flee from justice, interfere with the course of the investigation, tamper the evidence, misuses his liberty in similar criminal offence, etc, then the rule is BAIL NOT JAIL i.e. the accused shall be released on bail thus upholding his right to life and personal liberty as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

The bail which is granted even before the person is arrested is called Anticipatory or expectant bail. It is a safeguard against the complete capture when a person has a reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence.

The necessity of granting an expectant bail arises because powerful people attempt to implicate their opponents in false charges and detain them in jail for some days. However, the term Anticipatory bail is a misnomer as it represents an inefficacy that bail may be granted by the competent court in the apprehension of arrest and when a court grants anticipatory bail, it merely issues a direction to release a person on bail to avoid undue harassment of the blamed person(s) by pre-trial detention and such order becomes operational only upon arrest or thereafter. Thus, anticipatory bail or expectant bail is a term for conveniently conveying that it is possible to apply for bail in anticipation of arrest.

History
The concept of bail can be traced back to 399 B.C., when the Greece Philosopher Plato filled an application of bail for his teacher Socrates and created a bond for release of his teacher. The modern system of bail evolved from England. In the circuit courts structural system, the number of cases was very high due to which, the accused has to wait for months for their trial in unhygienic and unhealthy conditions due to which government was compelled to release the accused persons by securing surety, which remains forfeited in case of non-availability of the accused.

During the Mughal rule, traces have found regarding the institution of anticipatory bail. Under Mughal law, the principle of 'justice delayed is justice denied‟ can be seen where an interim release could be initiated by the consideration that if justice is denied in any case then the judge himself needs to bear the losses sustained by the aggrieved party due to such delay.

The British common law system has also shown the practice of bail. In that system of law, two forms of bails prevailed for release of a person in custody, known as muchalka and zamanat. After the changed status of British India to an Independent Republic India, administrators of law and justice are mandated to function in a manner that the constitutional equilibrium between the 'freedom of person' and the 'interests of social order' are maintained effectively [i]

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 did not contain any express provision relating to section 438 of the present Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973. There was a conflict of opinion about the power of the court to grant Anticipatory Bail. There are a number of cases where anticipatory bail was not granted.

In Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Prasad (1963),[ii]the High Court did not grant anticipatory bail on the ground that the dictionary meaning of the word bail is to set free or to liberate a person on security being given for his appearance. The Court observed that bail requires custody and if there is no custody, then there cannot be any bail.

The Privy Council in Emperor v. Nazir Ahmed [iii] stated that just as it is essential that every person should have free access to a court of justice, so it is of the utmost importance that the judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their area. It was further stated that if the court grants anticipatory bail, it interferes with the functioning of the police. Hence, anticipatory bail was not granted.

Prior to the provision of Anticipatory bail, many innocent people who have been implicated for an offence by their innocence rivals would spend a number of days in jail. It was required in order to prevent the violation of a person's liberty. According to Blackstone's formulation in criminal law-It is better that ten guilty persons escape than the one innocent suffer. Thus in order to prevent unnecessary detention and to preserve a person's liberty, it was necessary to introduce such a provision.

The Law Commission of India in its 41st Report dated September 24, 1969, recommended the introduction of a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure empowering only the High Court and the Court of Session to grant Anticipatory bail.

It observed in paragraph 39.9 of its report (Volume I) that[iv]:
The suggestion for directing the release of a person on bail prior to his arrest (commonly known as anticipatory bail) was carefully considered by us. Though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the Code.

The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase.

Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.

In paragraph 31 of its 48th Report (July, 1972) the Law Commission recommended acceptance of the suggestion and made the following comments on the aforesaid clause[v]:

The Bill introduces a provision for the grant of anticipatory bail. This is substantially in accordance with the recommendation made by the previous Commission. We agree that this would be a useful addition, though we must add that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised.

We are further of the view that in order to ensure that the provision is not put to abuse at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners, the final order should be made only after notice to the Public Prosecutor. The initial order should only be an interim one. Further, the relevant section should make it clear that the direction can be issued only for reasons to be recorded, and if the court is satisfied that such a direction is necessary in the interests of justice. It will also be convenient to provide that notice of the interim order as well as of the final orders will be given to the Superintendent of Police forthwith

The Law Commission, however, warned that it is in very exceptional cases that such a power should be exercised. There should be a reasonable cause and ground for grant of anticipatory bail.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1977[vi]) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:

Before power under sub-section (1) of Section 438 of the Code is exercised, the Court must be satisfied that the applicant invoking the provision has reason to believe that he is likely to be arrested for a non-bailable offence and that belief must be founded on reasonable grounds.

Mere fear is not belief, for which reason, it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds, on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence, must be capable of being examined by the Court objectively. Specific events and facts must be disclosed by the applicant in order to enable the Court to judge of the reasonableness of his belief, the existence of which is the sine qua non of the exercise of the power conferred by the Section.

Statutory Framework Of Anticipatory Bail

The whole framework of anticipatory bail law has been revised by the Amending Act of 2005.
Section 438 reads as follows:

438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.

(1) Where any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest he shall be released on bail; and that Court may, after taking into consideration, inter-alia, the following factors, namely:

1. the nature and gravity of the accusation;
2. the antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether he has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
3. the possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; and.
4. where the accusation has been made with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested, either reject the application forthwith or issue an interim order for the grant of anticipatory bail:

Provided that, where the High Court or, as the case may be, the Court of Session, has not passed any interim order under this Sub-Section or has rejected the application for grant of anticipatory bail, it shall be open to an officer-in-charge of a police station to arrest, without warrant the applicant on the basis of the accusation apprehended in such application.

(1A) Where the Court grants an interim order under Sub-Section (1), it shall forthwith cause a notice being not less than seven days notice, together with a copy of such order to be served on the Public Prosecutor and the Superintendent of Police, with a view to give the Public Prosecutor a reasonable opportunity of being heard when the application shall be finally heard by the Court,

(1B) The presence of the applicant seeking anticipatory bail shall be obligatory at the time of final hearing of the application and passing of final order by the Court if, on an application made to it by the Public Prosecutor, the Court considers such presence necessary in the interest of justice.

(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under subsection (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including:

1. a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
2. a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
3. a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
4. such other condition as may be imposed under Sub-Section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.

(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail, and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under Sub-Section (1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to any case involving the arrest of any person on accusation of having committed an offence under sub-section (3) of section 376 or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code

Reason To Believe: When can a person have a reason to believe?
This expression is the lifeline of section 438, Cr.P.C. as the anticipatory bail can not be granted unless the applicant shows that he has a reasonable reason to suspect that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence. Mere 'fear' is not 'belief 'otherwise the number of applications for anticipatory bail will be as high as the adult population. It is not enough for an applicant to show that he has some vague and general apprehension that someone is going to accuse him of some non-bailable offence.

The grounds on which the belief is based must be capable of being examined by the court objectively because it is the sole basis to determine whether the applicant has a reason to believe that he may be arrested. This is an extraordinary provision which must be exercised cautiously; it is neither a passport to the commission of crimes nor a shield against any or all kinds of accusation, likely or unlikely[vii]

State Amendments Regarding Anticipatory Bail [viii]

In the State of Uttar Pradesh, until recently, the provision of anticipatory bail was not applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh by inserting Section 9 of the criminal procedure (Uttar Pradesh) Amendment Act, 1976. However, the state government has reintroduced the provision of anticipatory bail and revived S. 438 Cr.P.C. in U.P. The Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Bill, 2018 was approved by the President on June 1, 2019, and has been brought into effect.

In the State of Maharashtra, by the judgment of Siddharam Satilingappa[ix], Supreme Court has finally held and observed that Section 438 Cr.P.C. does not mention anything about any duration to which direction on release of bail in the event of his arrest can be granted.

The order granting anticipatory bail is a direction, specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused and he is released on bail, the concerned court would be justified in imposing conditions on him, including direction to join investigation. Once the accused is released on bail by the trial court, then it could be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before trial court and again apply for anticipatory bail[x].

In the State of West Bengal, the substitution was made in sub-section (1) of section 438:

1. When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of' having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail:
   
   Provided that the mere fact that a person has applied to the High Court or the Court of' Session for a direction under this section shall not, in the absence of any order by that court, be a bar to the apprehension of such person, or the detention of such person in custody, by an officer-in-charge of a police station.
    
2. The appropriate court shall dispose of an application for a direction under this sub-section within thirty days of the date of such application and, no final order shall be made on offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years without giving the State not less than seven days' notice to present its case.
    
3. If any person is arrested and detained in custody by an officer-in-charge of a police station before the disposal of the application of such person for a direction under this subsection, the release of such person on bail by a court having jurisdiction, pending such disposal shall be subject to the provisions of section 437.

(1) (A) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained elsewhere in this Act or in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority[xi].

In the State of Andhra Pradesh, Anticipatory bail is a misnomer as it is not bail presently granted in anticipation of arrest. When the Court grants anticipatory bail what it does is to make an order in the event of arrest, a person shall be released on bail[xii].

In the State of Orissa, the proviso shall be added to sub-section (1) of section 438, which says that where the apprehended accusation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years, no final order shall be made on such application without giving the State notice to present its case[xiii].

Need For Anticipatory Bail:

Human Rights and Indian Constitution
The concept of anticipatory bail is based on the fundamental right to Life and personal liberty' of an individual as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and the principles of natural justice. When an arrest is made, it totally deprives a person of his 'personal liberty' and the freedom of movement and locomotion are confined within the four walls of Police cell or prison walls. And therefore the court should not impose any unreasonable or unfair conditions on the individual's right to obtain an order of anticipatory bail. The right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a valuable right, and hence should not be lightly inferred with[xiv].

While dealing with right to bail in the light of Artice 21, one is reminded of Charles Dickens novel 'A Tale of Two Cities' in which Dr. Manette was incarcerated in the Bastille for 18 years on a mere letter de cachet of a French aristocrat, although he was innocent.' In AK.Goplan case[xv]," the Supreme Court observed, 'personal liberty' includes not only immunity from arrest and detention but also other freedom of speech, association, etc: ,.. "it consists of freedom of movement and locomotion".

In Kharak Singh case[xvi], the Supreme Court ruled that personal liberty under Article 21 includes all varieties of freedom except those included in Art 19. A contrary view was taken in Menaka Gandhi case[xvii] wherein it was held that personal liberty includes all possible rights which go to constitute personal liberty including Article 19. In the State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy[xviii]," the Supreme Court held, Right to life is one of the basic human rights and not even the State has the authority to violate the right and as explained in Khadat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath's case[xix], if dignity or honor vanishes nothing remains in life.

Hence, the concept of anticipatory bail is synonymous with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as it safeguards the personal freedom and liberty of an individual against unnecessary detention and arrest irrespective of the fact that the person is an accused thus upholding the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Howsoever, it is not an essential ingredient of Article 21 since it was conferred long after the enforcement of the constitution.

Anticipatory bail is a solution to all those issues which arose in the wake of political rivalry and could not be resolved using law of torts.

The Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre v. State of Maharashtra (2010)[xx] observed that:

116. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

It further gave the following suggestions, which might help not in the curtailment of personal liberty of the accused in a routine manner:

1. Direct the accused to join the investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate with the investigating agency then only the accused must be arrested;
2. Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as title deeds of properties or fixed deposit receipts/share certificates of the accused;
3. Direct the accused to execute bonds;
4. The accused may be directed to furnish securities of a number of persons which according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case;
5. The accused should be directed to furnish an undertaking that he would not visit the place where the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering the evidence or otherwise influencing the course of justice can be avoided; and
6. Bank accounts be frozen for the small duration during the investigation.

Jurisdiction Of The Courts To Grant Anticipatory Bail

The power to grant anticipatory bail is entrusted only to the higher echelons of judicial service, i.e. to Sessions Court and the High Court having jurisdiction over the locale of the commission of the offence of which the person is accused.[xxi]

The place of residence or apprehension of arrest may not give jurisdiction.[xxii] Although section 438 gives concurrent power to High Court and Sessions Court, it is normally presumed that the Session Court would be first approached for the grant of anticipatory bail unless an adequate case for not approaching it is made out.[xxiii] It has also been held that it is not always necessary to approach the Session Judge first.[xxiv]

It has also been held that if the petition for anticipatory bail has been rejected by the Sessions Court, the petitioner cannot approach the High Court asking for anticipatory bail on the same grounds.[xxv]

The Bombay High Court[xxvi] has ruled that the rejection of the anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court would not be a bar for the High Court to entertain a similar application based on the same grounds and facts.

But if the application is rejected by the High Court and, thereafter a subsequent application cannot be entertained by the Sessions Court[xxvii]. An applicant can file an application for grant of anticipatory bail in a court within whose jurisdiction he apprehends his capture even though the First Information Report (F.I.R) might have been registered at a place within the jurisdiction of another High Court/ Sessions Court.[xxviii] Even if the Courts do not have the territorial Jurisdiction, they may entertain the application for grant of anticipatory bail after considering the facts and circumstances therein and grant the anticipatory bail for a short term with adequate safeguards.

Duration
In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court held that anticipatory law should not be time-bound. The very basis of this law is to ensure personal liberty. With the application of time- based limitation, this purpose of the law is defeated. [xxix]

However, the Court in its subsequent judgments took the opposite direction. It held anticipatory bail to be time-bound.

In Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [xxx], the Supreme Court observed that anticipatory bail orders should be of limited duration only and after the expiry of such duration it should be left at the discretion of the original court to deal with the matter. It further observed that the court dealing with the matter should decide whether the person is entitled to bail on the basis of evidence collected. This decision was upheld in KL Verma Case[xxxi].

In this case, the Court observed that:
anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but that does not mean that the regular court, which is to try the offender, is sought to be bypassed. It was, therefore, pointed out that it was necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration the court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted.

By this, what the Court desired to convey was that an order of anticipatory bail does not ensure till the end of the trial but it must be of limited duration as the regular court cannot be bypassed. The limited duration must be determined having regard to the facts of the case and the need to give the accused sufficient time to move the regular court for bail and to give the regular court sufficient time to determine the bail application.

In other words, till the bail application is disposed of one way or the other the court may allow the accused to remain on anticipatory bail. To put it differently, anticipatory bail may be granted for a duration which may extend to the date on which the bail application is disposed of or even a few days thereafter to enable the accused persons to move the higher court, if they so desire.

This decision was not intended to convey that as soon as the accused persons are produced before the regular court the anticipatory bail ends even if the court is yet to decide the question of bail on merits.

This decision of the Supreme Court was further followed in Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar and Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal.

However in the case Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the decision of Sibbia (supra) was not bought to the notice of bench in Salauddin, thus rendering it and other cases which followed its decision, per-incuriam. The Court held that directing the accused to surrender to custody after the limited period amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty. The Court laid down that once the anticipatory bail is granted then the protection should ordinarily be available till the end of trial, unless the interim protection by way of anticipatory bail is curtailed such as:

1. when the anticipatory bail granted is cancelled by the Court on finding fresh material or circumstance; and
2. on the ground of abuse of the indulgence by the accused.

The Court further stated that limiting the duration of anticipatory bail for a particular period is not valid, as no such statutory restriction exists[xxxii]. Thus the Court held that the life of an order of anticipatory bail should not be curtailed.

This question of the duration of Anticipatory Bail order has again come up in Sushila Aggarwal Case of 2018.
The Court has referred it to a larger bench focusing on:

1. Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.
    
2. Whether the life of anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court. [xxxiii]

Until the issue is taken up by the larger bench, it can be assumed that the decision observed in Sibbia and Mehtre is the true position of law. This is mainly due to the fact that the view taken in Salauddin case was held per-incuriam. Normally, anticipatory bail is not for a limited period and unless it is restricted, anticipatory bail continues till the end of the trial, unless revoked or cancelled.

Comparison
Anticipatory bail, as the name suggests, is granted before a person is arrested but not necessarily after the registration of FIR. If a person apprehends that he might be arrested, he may apply for an Anticipatory Bail. Ordinary Bail, on the other hand, is applied for by a person after his arrest. Since he has already been arrested and in the custody of the police, he has to apply for Bail.

The provisions relating to Anticipatory Bail are contained in Section 438 of the Code whereas Sections 436 and 437 deals with Ordinary/Regular Bail. Anticipatory Bail is a relatively new concept then regular bail, as prior to 1973; there were no provisions for the same in Cr.P.C.

Another difference between Anticipatory Bail and Regular Bail is that Bail under Section 438 is only granted by the High Court or Sessions Court. However, under Sections 436 and 437, it can be granted by any Judicial Magistrate or Court. Bail is ordinarily granted as a matter of right in case of bailable offence and it may also be granted in non-bailable offences under Section 437 of the Code, but the power to grant anticipatory bail is of an extraordinary character which is to be used by the Court sparingly.

There is no specific section which deals with cancellation of anticipatory bail. In State of Maharashtra v. Vishwas Shripati Patil, it was held Section 438 has implicit power to cancel the bail. It can also be cancelled under Section 439(2) of the Code. However, there is a specific power to cancel bail under Sections 437(5) and 439(2) of the Code.

In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab the Supreme Court held that:
The distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and is therefore effective at the very moment of arrest. Police custody is an inevitable concomitant of arrest for non-bailable offences.

An order of anticipatory bail constitutes, so to say, an insurance against police custody following upon arrest for offence or offences in respect of which the order is issued. In other words, unlike a post-arrest order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued; he shall be released on bail[xxxiv].

Conclusion
Anticipatory Bail is only granted in cases of non-bailable offence, but it is not necessary that the offence has to be a cognizable one. There is no provision for blanket anticipatory bail, neither in Section 438 nor in any other provision of the Code. This Section has to be read with Section 437 as all the limitations imposed in Section 437 are implicit in Section 438.

Judges have the power to apply their discretion in granting of anticipatory bail, but the Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free [xxxv], as this discretion shall not be exercised with regard to offences punishable with death or imprisonment for life unless the court at the very stage is satisfied that such a charge appears to be false or groundless.

Further, this discretion should not be exercised in cases of dowry deaths, and economic offence involving corruption at the higher political and executive levels. The court should record reasons while granting anticipatory bail as stated in State of Maharashtra v Vishwas.

In complaint cases, where the charge-sheet has been filed and the non-bailable warrant has been issued by the Magistrate, the anticipatory bail can be granted [xxxvi]. The basis for granting Anticipatory Bail should not be different for different people, mason and millionaire should be treated alike and therefore the status in life, and affluence should not affect the order for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory Bail can be granted after the issue of the process by the Trial Court. [xxxvii]

The issuance of summons for appearance entitles an accused to apply for anticipatory bail.[xxxviii] But there could be no order granting anticipatory bail after the person is arrested[xxxix]. If there are sufficient reasons to believe that the complainant is biased, he should not be heard while considering the request for anticipatory bail[xl].All in all, One ought not to make a bugbear of the power to grant anticipatory bail[xli].

References:

1. D. C. Pandey, Release on Bail: Law and practice (The bail system), available at http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456789/671/9/The%20Bail%20System.pdf visited on April 22, 2019.
2. Balsara, S. (1980). BAIL NOT JAIL-EMPTY THE PRISONS. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 22(3), 341-350. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950698
3. Balsara, S. (1980). BAIL NOT JAIL-EMPTY THE PRISONS. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 22(3), 341-350. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950698
4. Law Commission of India 41st Report, September 1969, 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Volume I', para 39.9; pp. 320-321
5. Law Commission of India 48thReport,July 1972'Some question under the Code of Criminal Procedure Bill, 1970
6. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (09.04.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0215/1980
7. Singhal's Criminal Law Part-II (Cr. P.C.)
8. IJJSR ISSN 2581-5199 Vol 1 issue 2
9. (2011) 1SCC 694
10. Suresh C. Gupta, Personal Liberty and Grant of Anticipatory Bail, Legal India Legal news & law resource portal, available at https://www.legalindia.com/personal-liberty-and-grant-of-anticipatory-bail/, visited on 22/04/2019.
11. Sec 438-Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest, Blog Legal services India, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/issues/topic1087-sec-438-direction-for-grant-of-bail-to-person-apprehending-arrest.html, visited on 22/04/2019
12. Madhubala, Anticipatory Bail, available at http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-41-anticipatory-bail.html, visited on 22/04/2019.
13. Ibid 11
14. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka (2008) 3 SCC 753
15. AIR 1950 SC P.27
16. Kharak Singh v. State of UP AIR 1963 SC 1295
17. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India and anr. (1978) 1 SCC P248 AIR 1978 SC P597
18. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and ors. AIR 2000 SC P.2038
19. Khadat Mazdoor chetana Sangath v. State of MP AIR 1995 SC P31
20. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2011 SC Para.128
21. Balchand Jain v. State of M.P., (1976) 4 SCC 572
22. Syed Zafrul Hassan v. State, 1986 Cri LJ 605 (Pat) (FB)
23. Chhajju Ram Godara v. State of Haryana, 1978 Cri LJ 608 (P&H); Usman v. S.I. of Police, (2003) 2 KLT 594
24. Y. Chandrasekhara Rao v. Kamala Kumari, 1993 Cri LJ 3508 (AP)
25. Amiya Kumar v. State of W.B., 1979 Cri LJ 288 (Cal.)
26. Jagannath v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 Cri LJ 1808 (Bom.)
27. Devidas Raghu Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cri LJ 252 (Bom.)
28. Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab, 1980 Cri LJ 1174 (Del.); Pradeep kumarSoni v. State of M.P., 1990 Cri LJ 2055 (M.P.); Jodha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 Cri LJ 1962 (Raj.)
29. The Meandering Law on The Duration Of An Anticipatory Bail Order. Article by Bharat Chugh and Sujoy Sur
30. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikj V State of Maharashtra (11.12.1995-SC): MANU/SC/0280/1996
31. K.L. Verma vs. State and Ors. (13.10.1996 - SC) : MANU/SC/1493/1998
32. A.L.T ( Criminal) JOURNAL (Vol. XLVI) (January 2012 ) (Part-1)
33. The Meandering Law on The Duration Of An Anticipatory Bail Order. Article by Bharat Chugh and Sujoy Sur
34. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. vs. State of Punjab (09.04.1980 - SC) : MANU/SC/0215/1980
35. Benjamin Cardozo
36. Puran Singh v Ajit Singh (1985) Cri LJ 897 (P&H HC), Sharvin Ahmad v State (2003) Cri LJ 2815
37. Sheik Khasim v State (1986) Cri LJ 1303 (AP HC)
38. P.V. Narsimha Rao. v Delhi Admn. (1997) Cri LJ 961 (Delhi HC)
39. N. K.S, M Shahul Hamid v Mohd. Ibrahim (1992) Cri LJ 227
40. Indu Bala v State of Delhi (1991) Cri LJ 1774 ( Delhi HC)
41. Ibid 34

Written By: Aastha Khanna (Law Centre-1, University of Delhi) & Ayushi Gupta (Law Centre-1, University of Delhi)