ISSUE:
Whether the protection granted under Section 438 CrPC should be limited to a fixed period, requiring the accused to surrender and seek regular bail after the filing of the charge sheet?
Whether the restrictions under Section 437 CrPC should be read into Section 438 CrPC, thereby limiting anticipatory bail in cases involving serious offenses?
Whether custodial interrogation is a valid ground for denying anticipatory bail when the accused is cooperating with the investigation?
RULE:
Section 438 CrPC is an independent provision and is not subject to the limitations imposed under Section 437 CrPC. The scope of anticipatory bail must be understood in light of its legislative intent, which is to prevent arbitrary arrests and protect individual liberty.
There is no justification for imposing a time limit on anticipatory bail unless specific circumstances warrant its cancellation. Once granted, anticipatory bail should ordinarily continue unless new circumstances arise necessitating its revocation.
The mere gravity of the offense cannot be a ground to deny anticipatory bail. Courts must assess whether the accused is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or misuse the liberty granted, rather than mechanically refusing bail based on the nature of the offense.
Custodial interrogation is not a mandatory requirement for rejecting anticipatory bail. If the accused is cooperating with the investigation and there are no valid reasons justifying detention, custodial interrogation alone cannot be the basis for denial.