Anil Vanshkar Vs. State of M.P. and Another

(I) Considering the amendment vide Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. on the touch stone of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it appears that personal liberty of an individual cannot lie at the mercy of presence of an “Informant”.

(II) Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law and by the amendment incorporated under Section 439(1-A) of Cr.P.C. impliedly penalises the applicant/ accused while withholding his bail application for an indefinite period which is not permissible in law.
(III) Personal liberty of a person cannot be sacrificed at the sweet will of the presence of Informant who may or may not appear.
(IV) Procedural law (like Cr.P.C. in the present case) cannot be converted into Penal Code by way of such amendment which may keep an individual in confinement for indefinite period or till presence of Informant is ensured before the Court.

(V) Provisions contained in Section 439 (1-A) of Cr.P.C. are held to be 'Directory' and not 'Mandatory'.
(VI) Any provisions in procedural law results in absurdity/inconvenience and impossibility to do certain act then provisions should be construed as 'Directory' instead of 'Mandatory'.

Anil Vanshkar Vs. State of M.P. and Another

Back to Judgments