Summary
The Supreme Court held that Section 88 CrPC conferred discretion to take an appearance bond, rather than an automatic right to release for a person not arrested during investigation. On these facts, non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 had already issued, and refusal to accept a bond was justified. The Court declined to decide regular bail in the first instance, directing the trial court to consider any bail application forthwith, including the appellant’s disability and other relevant grounds.
Issues
- Whether absence of arrest during investigation required release on an appearance bond under Section 88 CrPC.
- Whether “may” in that provision imposed a mandatory duty.
- Whether the Supreme Court should decide regular bail before an application to the trial court.
Provisions considered
- Section 88, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Conferred a discretionary power to secure future appearance, not a mandatory entitlement to release on furnishing a bond. (¶¶ 14, 23, 29, 30, 31)
Held
- Whether “may” imposes a duty depends on statutory context. Section 88 enables the court to secure appearance and does not confer a corresponding right on every person present. Its reference to any person can include witnesses as well as accused persons. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
- The appellant was already subject to non-bailable warrants and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83; he was not a free agent as to whether to appear. The Court rejected his claimed entitlement under Section 88 and found cogent reasons for the Special Judge’s and High Court’s refusal. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31)
- The earlier liberty to seek relief did not predetermine release. Despite repeated opportunities to apply for regular bail, the appellant had insisted on a Section 88 bond. Regular bail should first be considered by the trial court on a proper application. (¶¶ 3, 4, 5, 34, 35)
- Bail discretion must be exercised judiciously, humanely and compassionately. Any bail application filed by the appellant was to be considered forthwith by the trial court, including his claimed disability and other relevant grounds; the Supreme Court itself did not grant or refuse regular bail on its merits. (¶¶ 32, 33, 34, 35)
Result
Appeal disposed of. Refusal of release under Section 88 upheld; trial court to consider any regular-bail application forthwith on the relevant grounds.