Dhanraj Aswani Vs. Amar S.Mulchandani & ANR

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Dhanraj Aswani Vs....

In Criminal Appeal No. 2501 of 2024, the Supreme Court of India addressed whether an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), is maintainable when the accused is already in judicial custody for a different case. The appeal arose from a Bombay High Court judgment that permitted the respondent, already in custody for one case, to seek anticipatory bail in another.

The Court while dealing with the above Issue, clarified that anticipatory bail is a statutory right under Section 438 of the CrPC rather than a constitutional or fundamental right.

The key issue was whether a person already in custody for one offence could have a “reason to believe” they might be arrested for another offence. The Court affirmed this possibility, noting that the individual could be re-arrested either immediately upon release or through formal procedures while still in custody.

Emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court rejected the argument that a subsequent arrest does not add to the individual’s humiliation. It underscored that each arrest contributes to the person’s distress and social stigma, thereby compounding the impact on their liberty.

The Supreme Court went on to assert that an accused can seek anticipatory bail for a different offence even while in custody for another. It found no statutory or procedural bar to such applications and emphasized that denying this right would contravene the principles of fairness and personal liberty. The appeal was therefore dismissed, with the Bombay High Court directed to decide the anticipatory bail application based on its merits.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Ajaykumar Sunilkumar Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 359

The Court held in the Instant case that the following, among other circumstances, can generally be used to determine if someone had the intent to cause death: The… Read more »

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled… Read more »

Rights In Rem Are Not Arbitrable – Supreme Court

In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. (2011), the Supreme Court of India ruled that disputes involving the enforcement of mortgage rights are non-arbitrable… Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.