Whether a person accused of having committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) is eligible for anticipatory bail is a contentious issue in Indian criminal law. Though the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure granted powers of anticipatory bail to protect a person against false and unethical prosecution, such practices in cases of corruption qua the serious socio economic crimes have always been under strict judicial scrutiny.
The Legal Framework: A Tale of Two Statutes
The provision governing anticipatory bail is Section 438 of the CrPC. Under it, Section 438 grants powers upon the High Court and the Court of Session to direct that when arrested, a person ought to be released on bail. This provision is a safeguard so as to protect an individual’s liberty against false and concocted allegations.
Conversely, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a special law passed to counter the scourge of corruption in public life. The Act constitutes different crimes against corruption and prescribes severe punishments. The nature of the crimes under the PC Act, which most times entails a violation of public trust, has caused the judiciary to adopt a stricter stance in granting bail.
The Judicial Stance: A Cautious Approach
The courts have taken a conservative and prudent approach in entertaining anticipatory bail petitions in PC Act cases. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently ruled that corruption is a grievous offense tending to undermine society. Therefore, the courts tend to hesitate in granting pre-arrest bail, which may ultimately prejudice the investigation.
One of the landmark judgments in this regard is the case of P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, where the Supreme Court observed that economic offenses constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The court emphasized that in cases of corruption, the investigating agency must be given sufficient freedom to unearth the conspiracy and the trail of ill-gotten money.
The overall attitude of the judiciary is that, in cases of corruption, custodial interrogation is usually unavoidable in order to dig up the larger conspiracy, find all the perpetrators, and recover the ill-gotten money. To grant anticipatory bail in these cases would risk the accused manipulating evidence, tampering with witnesses, or even fleeing.
Exceptions to the Rule: When Can Anticipatory Bail be Granted?
Although with general reluctance, the doors of anticipatory bail are not totally closed for a person accused under the PC Act. It is seen that the courts have carved out certain exceptions where anticipatory bail can be granted. These include:
Frivolous or Malafide Allegations: If the court is of the prima facie view that the allegations are frivolous, baseless, or have been made with a malicious intent to harass and humiliate the accused, it may grant anticipatory bail.
Lack of Evidence: Where there is a glaring lack of evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offense, the court may exercise its discretion in favor of granting pre-arrest bail.
Here, the court will allow anticipatory bail because no custodial interrogation of the accused is necessary and the late stage of the investigation does not necessitate such interrogation.
The health condition and age of the accused can also be a factor that the court may consider while deciding on an anticipatory bail application.
Conclusion: A Balancing Act
The grant or denial of anticipatory bail in a Prevention of Corruption Act case is a balancing act. The courts are required to balance an individual’s right to freedom with the greater public interest in deterring corruption. While the general principle is to exercise restraint in granting pre-arrest bail in such cases, the courts also owe it to people to safeguard them from false and malicious prosecution. The decision to grant or refuse anticipatory bail ultimately depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and the court’s assessment of the gravity of the offense, the role of the accused, and the need for custodial interrogation.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
NITYA JAIN is a first year BBA LLB student at Symbiosis Law School, Pune. She is a certified legal researcher by Manupatra. She have an interest in Public service, research, drafting. She have done various legal internships and look forward to do more. Her interest lies in corporate law, International law and Intellectual Property Law.