SUNDEEP KUMAR BAFNA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr.

Procedure, 1973(Cr.PC), which comprises ss.436 to 450, A deals with bail. For the purpose of the instant case, ss.437 and 438 are relevant. Section 437, inter alia, provides that if any person accused of, or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a B police station or if such person appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail in certain circumstances. There is no provision in the Code or elsewhere, curtailing the power of the Court of Session c or the High Court to entertain and decide pleas for bail. Further, no provision categorically prohibits the production of an accused before either of these courts. The universal right of personal liberty emblazened by Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, being fundamental to the 0 very existence of not only to a citizen of India but to every person, cannot be trifled with merely on a presumptive plane. In view of the amendments carried out by Parliament, ss. 437 to 439, Cr. P. C. predicate on the well established principles of interpretation of statutes that E what is not plainly evident from their reading, was never intended to be incorporated into law. Whilst s. 437 contemplates that a person has to be accused or suspect of a non-bailable offence and consequently arrested or detained without warrant, s. 439 empowers the Court of Session or High Court to grant bail if such a person is in F custody. The difference of language manifests the sublime differentiation in the two provisions and, therefore, there is no justification in giving the word 'c_ustody' the same or closely similar meaning and content as arrest or detention. [para 5 and 8] [499-G-H; G 500-A-B; 504-C-E; 505-F-H; 506-A-C]

1.2. Furthermore, while s. 437 severally curtails the power of the Magistrate to grant bail in context of the commission of non-bailable offences punishable with H 490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 4 S.C.R. A death or imprisonment for life, the two higher courts have only the procedural requirement of giving notice of the bail application to the Public Prosecutor, which requirement is also ignorable if circumstances so demand. The regimes regulating the powers of the B Magistrate, on the one hand, and the two superior courts, on the other, are decidedly and intentionally not identical, but vitally and drastically dissimilar. Indeed, the only complicity that can be contemplated is the conundrum of 'Committal of cases to the Court of Session' because of c a possible hiatus created by the CrPC. [para 8] (506-C-E]