<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said courts should not grant protection from arrest to accused while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea at the same time, saying such a direction "exceeds discretion and amounts to judicial largesse, which the courts do not possess".</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose said the court's discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner.</p>.<p>"The court must take into account the statutory scheme... such an order must necessarily be narrowly tailored to protect the interests of the applicant while taking into consideration the concerns of the society at large and the investigating authority. Such an order must be a reasoned one," the court said.</p>.<p>In a judgement, the top court said though the power to grant such advance bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be read liberally for it had a direct bearing on right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court should not normally grant protection from arrest for a particular period of time, when no ground for anticipatory bail was made out.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-stays-hc-order-for-advance-bail-on-apprehension-of-covid-989875.html" target="_blank">SC stays HC order for advance bail on apprehension of Covid</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench said in certain extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, however, the High Court can protect the accused for some time even though the investigating agency has made out a case for arrest, by passing a detailed and reasoned order. </p>.<p>The top court set aside two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court where the plea for pre-arrest bail by the accused was dismissed but they were granted protection from arrest for 90 days.</p>.<p>"The High Court committed a grave error in passing such protection to the accused," the court said, noting the effect of the order was that neither were they found entitled to pre-arrest bail, nor can they be arrested for a long duration.</p>.<p>"During the said duration they can roam freely without being apprehensive of coercive action," it said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Friday said courts should not grant protection from arrest to accused while dismissing the anticipatory bail plea at the same time, saying such a direction "exceeds discretion and amounts to judicial largesse, which the courts do not possess".</p>.<p>A bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose said the court's discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail cannot be exercised in an untrammelled manner.</p>.<p>"The court must take into account the statutory scheme... such an order must necessarily be narrowly tailored to protect the interests of the applicant while taking into consideration the concerns of the society at large and the investigating authority. Such an order must be a reasoned one," the court said.</p>.<p>In a judgement, the top court said though the power to grant such advance bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code must be read liberally for it had a direct bearing on right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the court should not normally grant protection from arrest for a particular period of time, when no ground for anticipatory bail was made out.</p>.<p><strong>Also read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/sc-stays-hc-order-for-advance-bail-on-apprehension-of-covid-989875.html" target="_blank">SC stays HC order for advance bail on apprehension of Covid</a></strong></p>.<p>The bench said in certain extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, however, the High Court can protect the accused for some time even though the investigating agency has made out a case for arrest, by passing a detailed and reasoned order. </p>.<p>The top court set aside two orders passed by the Allahabad High Court where the plea for pre-arrest bail by the accused was dismissed but they were granted protection from arrest for 90 days.</p>.<p>"The High Court committed a grave error in passing such protection to the accused," the court said, noting the effect of the order was that neither were they found entitled to pre-arrest bail, nor can they be arrested for a long duration.</p>.<p>"During the said duration they can roam freely without being apprehensive of coercive action," it said.</p>
