The Allahabad High Court stated that bail applications cannot be considered in cases where the crime is punishable by death, according to the UP amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code.

The Allahabad High Court stated that anticipatory bail cannot be granted in Uttar Pradesh for crimes that carry the death penalty. The Court emphasized that the law is clear and does not allow for exceptions. This ruling came during a hearing of a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application, where a single judge questioned whether Section 438(6)(b) Cr.P.C. in Uttar Pradesh completely bars anticipatory bail for death penalty offenses or if it only applies when the Court finds that the case justifies such a penalty.

Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Narendra Kumar Johari noted that the state law clearly forbids anticipatory bail for offenses punishable by death. They pointed out that when the language of a law is straightforward, it must be followed as intended. In this case, the state amendments do not permit any judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail for death penalty offenses. The prohibition is total and does not consider the specifics of the case or the nature of the crime.

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Sachidananda Banerjee, Assistant Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Sitaram Agarwala and another, 1965. It stated, “The second rule of construction is well established: a court cannot interpret one section of a law by comparing it to another unless both sections are closely related. Therefore, rulings based on a different law in India or elsewhere are not relevant unless the laws are closely related. Ignoring this rule undermines the core principle of construction, which is for the court to determine the clear intention of the legislature.” The Court added, “Any hardship or unfairness from strictly applying the law is for the legislature to fix through amendments. Courts should not try to fill gaps in the law by acting against the clear rules of the statute.” Thus, the Court concluded that no judicial discretion can be used to consider anticipatory bail applications in cases where the crime is punishable by death.

Cause Title: Jitendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Murli Manohar Srivastava and Upmanyu Srivastava
Respondent: Advocate Sumit Kumar Srivastava