“Supreme Court Clarifies: Anticipatory Bail Not Guaranteed, Trial Courts Can Take Coercive Steps Against Accused”

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has underscored that the mere pendency of an application for anticipatory bail does not prevent trial courts from taking coercive steps against the accused. The bench, comprising Justices C T Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, emphasized that while bail is often considered a rule, anticipatory bail cannot be considered the norm.

The court highlighted that the power to grant anticipatory bail is an extraordinary one, to be exercised cautiously and judiciously by the courts. It clarified that when warrants of arrest or proclamations are issued against an accused, they cannot automatically seek anticipatory bail. However, the court retains the discretion to grant pre-arrest bail in exceptional cases in the interest of justice.

The bench stressed the importance of considering the facts and circumstances of each case before granting anticipatory bail, emphasizing that interim protection in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and hinder investigations by potentially tampering with evidence.

Referring to a specific case before it, the court declined relief to the petitioners who had sought anticipatory bail, noting their continuous defiance of court orders and failure to appear before the trial court even after the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The bench highlighted the petitioners’ lack of action to challenge the proclamations under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and their failure to enter appearance before the trial court to avert the consequences.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the discretionary nature of anticipatory bail and reinforces the principle that trial courts have the authority to take coercive measures against accused individuals who defy court orders. It underscores the importance of complying with legal procedures and court directives to avoid adverse consequences during legal proceedings.