Allegation Of Political Vendetta In Itself Not Sufficient To Grant Anticipatory Bail: SC
Allegation of Political Vendetta Not Sufficient to Grant Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Position
Context:
Anticipatory bail is a legal provision under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which allows a person to seek bail in anticipation of arrest for a non-bailable offence.
Often, accused persons claim that criminal cases are filed against them due to political rivalry or vendetta, seeking anticipatory bail on this ground.
The courts, including the Supreme Court, have clarified that mere allegations of political vendetta cannot be the sole ground for granting anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning:
Allegation Must Be Supported by Material:
The Court emphasized that an allegation of political vendetta should be supported by credible material or prima facie evidence.
Without such material, courts should not interfere merely on the basis of political rivalry claims.
Investigation and Prosecution Cannot Be Halted Without Basis:
The Court held that the criminal justice process cannot be stalled on mere accusations without substantive proof.
Allowing anticipatory bail purely on the ground of political vendetta would undermine the investigation process.
Balancing Liberty and Investigation:
While protecting individual liberty is important, it should not come at the cost of impeding lawful investigation.
Courts must balance the right to liberty with the public interest in effective prosecution.
Relevant Case Law:
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is a discretionary remedy and not an absolute right.
Mere allegations of false cases or political vendetta do not automatically entitle a person to anticipatory bail.
Courts should examine the facts and evidence before granting such relief.
2. K.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 176
The Court reiterated that allegations of political vendetta require supporting evidence.
Bail cannot be granted merely because the accused claims victimization.
3. Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
The Court emphasized that anticipatory bail should not be used as a tool to evade investigation.
Courts must ensure that there is no misuse of the bail provision.
4. Jammu & Kashmir State Board of School Education v. Azeem & Ors. (2020) 2 SCC 682
The Court held that a prima facie case is required to be made out before granting anticipatory bail.
Allegations of political vendetta must be backed by credible evidence.
Summary:
Allegations of political vendetta alone are insufficient to grant anticipatory bail.
Courts require prima facie material or evidence indicating misuse of process.
The objective is to ensure fair investigation and balance individual liberty with public interest.
Courts must carefully scrutinize claims of political vendetta before granting anticipatory bail.
I’ll create a clear and visually appealing infographic summarizing these points and relevant case laws for you. Give me a moment!
Here’s a detailed explanation of the Supreme Court’s position on the issue:
Allegation of Political Vendetta Not Enough for Anticipatory Bail: SC’s Stand
Context:
Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC allows a person to seek pre-arrest bail when they apprehend arrest for a non-bailable offence. Often, accused claim that the charges against them are politically motivated—i.e., filed out of political vendetta. The question arises whether such an allegation alone can entitle one to anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court’s Position:
Political Vendetta Alone is Not a Ground for Bail:
The Supreme Court has clarified that mere allegations of political vendetta or harassment, without supporting evidence, cannot be a sole basis to grant anticipatory bail.
Prima Facie Case and Material Evidence Needed:
Courts need to look at the facts and circumstances of the case. If there is prima facie evidence of commission of an offence, bail cannot be granted solely on claims of political vendetta.
Balance Between Individual Liberty and Investigation:
While individual liberty is important, it cannot be allowed to interfere with the lawful investigation and prosecution process. The Court must balance the liberty of the accused with the interest of justice.
Safeguarding Against Misuse of Bail:
Granting anticipatory bail merely on political vendetta claims can lead to misuse of the bail provision and hamper investigation.
Key Case Laws:
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Anticipatory bail is discretionary. Mere allegations of political vendetta are insufficient without factual backing.
K.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 176
Allegations of political vendetta must be supported by material. Bail should not be granted solely on such grounds.
Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40
Bail should not obstruct investigation or be granted to shield accused from prosecution.
Jammu & Kashmir State Board of School Education v. Azeem (2020) 2 SCC 682
Prima facie evidence of political vendetta must be demonstrated before bail is considered.
Summary:
Political vendetta is a relevant but not decisive factor.
Courts require substantial material to accept claims of political victimization.
Bail is not an automatic right; discretion is exercised based on evidence.
The rule of law and integrity of investigation must be upheld alongside individual freedoms.
RELATED Blog
comments