While Regular Bail Is The Norm, Granting Anticipatory Bail Is An Extraordinary Power: Bombay High Court

The Court said that considering each case’s specific circumstances, the Courts must exercise careful and prudent discretion when deciding whether to grant anticipatory bail.

The Court was hearing an application where the applicant was seeking a pre-arrest bail in case registered for offences punishable under Sections 105, 125(a), 125(b), and 324(4) read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

The bench of Justice R.N. Laddha observed, “ …granting anticipatory bail is an extraordinary power. While regular bail is generally considered the norm, the same principle does not apply to anticipatory bail.”

Advocate Shekhar Ingawale appeared for the Appellant and APP Yogesh Y Dabke appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

On July 27 2024, the four-storey ‘Indira Niwas’ building, comprising seventeen flats and three shops, suddenly collapsed, trapping three individuals, who later succumbed to their injuries at the hospital. An investigation by the informant, a Junior Engineer from Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, revealed that the building lacked proper authorisation and contravened the provisions of the MRTP Act. Further inquiry revealed that the applicant and the co-accused had knowingly constructed the building using inferior materials, disregarding its structural integrity and putting the lives of its residents at risk.

The Court noted, “The rising occurrence of unapproved construction projects has a detrimental impact on public infrastructure. It depletes resources and poses a serious risk to public safety. The absence of proper legal approval and expert consultation during construction, as well as routine post-construction checks, inevitably leads to catastrophic events like building collapse. The consequences are severe, resulting in loss of property and lives. Once a life is lost, it is an irreversible tragedy.”

The Court further observed, “The investigation indicates the applicant’s involvement in the crime and raises questions about the corporation’s concerned departments’ role in allowing the unauthorised building to stand for so many years.”

The Court said that caution is necessary, as granting protection in serious cases could potentially hinder investigation or lead to miscarriage of justice by allowing tampering with evidence.

The Court noted that given the gravity of the offence wherein three persons lost their lives and several others were seriously injured and the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage, it was not inclined to exercise its discretion in favour of the Applicant.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the application.