Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.88 – Interpretation of – Power to take bond for appearance – Whether it was obligatory for the trial Court to release the appellant by accepting the bond u/s.88 on the ground that he was not arrested during the investigation or has the trial Court rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 in rejecting the application for release by accepting the bond u/s.88 – Held: Trial Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction u/s.88 – s.88 does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court – Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose and object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or to any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial – Discretion given u/s.88 to the Court does not confer any right on a person, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given to the Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates that use of word ‘may’ (in s.88) is discretionary and it is for the Court to exercise its discretion when situation so demands – Further, the word used u/s.88 “any person” has to be given wide meaning, which may include persons, who are not even accused in a case and appeared as witnesses – Interpretation of Statutes. Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – s.88 – Release on acceptance of bond u/s.88 – Entitlement for – Held: s.88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court – Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose and object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or to any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial – The present is not a case where accused was a free agent whether to appear or not – He was already issued non-bailable warrant of arrest as well as proceeding of ss.82 and 83 Cr.P.C. had been initiated – In this view of the matter he was not entitled to the benefit of s.88.
Bail – Request by appellant to release him on bail – Held: Request cannot be accepted – In instant case, the Supreme Court on two earlier occasions had granted liberty to the appellant to make an application for bail before the trial court, however, the appellant had not filed any application and had only insisted for releasing him on acceptance of bond u/s.88 Cr.P.C. – Also, in facts of this case, trial Court is to first consider the prayer of grant of bail of the appellant – Thus, when the appellant files a bail application, the same shall be considered forthwith by trial court taking into consideration his claim of disability and other relevant grounds which are urged or may be urged by the appellant before it.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court. Discretion given under Section 88 to the Court does not confer any right on a person, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given to the Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates that use of word ‘may’ is discretionary and it is for the Court to exercise its discretion when situation so demands. It is further relevant to note that the word used in Section 88 “any person” has to be given wide meaning, which may include persons, who are not even accused in a case and appeared as witnesses. [Para 23] [260-E-F]
2. The word ‘may’ used in Section 88 confers a discretion on the Court whether to accept a bond from an accused from a person appearing in the Court or not. There is no infirmity in the view taken by the Special Judge, C.B.I. as well as the High Court in coming to the conclusion that accused was not entitled to be released on acceptance of bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. [Para 31] [265-A-B]
3. Appellant submitted that since the appellant has made a request to set him on liberty by accepting the bond before the Special Judge, C.B.I. as well may release the appellant on bail. He further submitted that appellant is a person with 60% disability, and that the loss which was alleged in the First Information Report is secured and this Court may exercise its jurisdiction in granting the bail to the appellant. There are two reasons due to which the request of the appellant to consider the case of bail of the appellant in present proceeding is not accepted. Firstly, this Court on two earlier occasions had granted liberty to the appellant to make an application for bail before the trial court, the appellant has not filed any application for bail before the trial court and had insisted on releasing him on acceptance of bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. Secondly, in the facts of this case, trial court is to first consider the prayer of grant of bail of the appellant. Thus, when the appellant files a bail application, the same shall be considered forthwith by trial court taking into consideration his claim of disability and other relevant grounds which are urged or may be urged by the appellant before it. [Paras 34 and 35] [266-B-F]
Sanjay Chandra v. C.B.I. decided on 23.05.2011 in Bail Application No. 508 of 2011; Dr. Anand Deo Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2000 (2) Patna Law Journal Reports 686 – approved.
Arun Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. 2016 (3) RCR (Criminal) 883 – disapproved.
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Jogendra Singh AIR 1963 SC 1618 : [1964] SCR 197; Ramji Missar & Anr. v. State of Bihar AIR 1963 SC 1088 : [1963] Suppl. SCR 745; State of Kerala & Ors. v. Kandath Distilleries (2013) 6 SCC 573 : [2013] 4 SCR 1053; Court on Its own Motion v. Central Bureau of Investigation 109 (2003) Delhi Law Times 494; Sanjay Chaturvedi v. State 132 (2006) Delhi Law Times 692; Madhu Limaye & Anr. v. Ved Murti & Ors. (1970) 3 SCC 739; Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018 (3) SCC 22 – referred to.
Julius v. Lord Bishop of Oxford (1874-80) All ER Rep.
43 – referred to.
“Principles of Statutory Interpretation” 14th Edition by Justice G.P. Singh – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.