It must accordingly be outlined that the Court’s ruling in Dharamraj, insofar as it requires assailing proceedings under Section 82 CrPC to obtain pre-arrest bail, does not commend itself to the law nor to practicalities of a criminal trial. The Court in Dharamraj, having placed reliance on earlier judgments of Lavesh v. State NCT of Delhi and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pradeep Sharma, failed to consider the evolution of the law on pre-arrest bail as outlined by the five-judge bench in Sushila Aggarwal v. State NCT of Delhi, whereby the Constitution Bench aptly outlined that,
“…where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond, or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems to justification to require him to first submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.”
The Bench went on to add that,
“…the provision for anticipatory bail is pro-liberty and enables one anticipating arrest, a facility of approaching the court for a direction that he or she be not arrested; it was specifically enacted as a measure of protection against arbitrary arrests and humiliation by the police, which Parliament itself recognised as a widespread malaise on part of the police.”
Source: Barandbench
