The Supreme Court of India has struck down the Gujarat Model of anticipatory bail, ruling it unconstitutional. The judgment reinforces personal liberty by prohibiting police custody of accused during bail without bail cancellation. This landmark decision ensures uniform bail protections across India and calls for reforms balancing liberty with effective investigations.
New Delhi (ABC Live): The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling on August 7, 2024, decisively rejected the Gujarat Model of anticipatory bail. The judgment in Tusharbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani [2024 INSC 588] declared this long-standing practice illegal and reaffirmed the importance of protecting personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
What Is the Gujarat Model of Anticipatory Bail?
The Gujarat Model of anticipatory bail is a judicial practice unique to Gujarat. Under this model, courts grant anticipatory bail with a condition that allows police to seek custodial remand of the accused without cancelling bail. This means an accused person on bail can still be placed in police custody.
This practice was justified as a way to balance liberty and effective police investigations. However, it blurred the lines between bail protection and custody, causing legal confusion.
Comparison: Gujarat Model vs. Standard Anticipatory Bail
| Feature | Gujarat Model of Anticipatory Bail | Standard Model of Anticipatory Bail |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Status | Local practice in Gujarat, now struck down | Constitutionally accepted nationwide |
| Custody During Bail | Police can request custody without bail cancellation | Custody not allowed unless bail is cancelled |
| Bail Conditions | Bail granted with police remand condition | Bail granted without such conditions |
| Purpose | Balance liberty and police investigation | Protect personal liberty and prevent arbitrary detention |
| Legal Validity | Declared illegal by the Supreme Court in 2024 | Fully valid and supported by Supreme Court precedents |
| Risk to the Accused | Increased risk of custody despite bail | Stronger protection from custody |
Supreme Court’s Verdict on the Gujarat Model
The Supreme Court emphasised that anticipatory bail and regular bail have the same legal effect. Once granted, bail protects the accused from custody unless it is formally revoked.
The Court condemned the Gujarat Model, stating that allowing police custody without cancelling bail undermines the right to personal liberty. The judgment aligns with previous decisions like:
-
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
-
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
The Court held that the “long prevailing practice” in Gujarat lacks legal sanction and must be discontinued.
Impact on the Criminal Justice System
This ruling creates uniformity in bail law across India. It ensures anticipatory bail remains a real safeguard against arbitrary arrest.
However, it also highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing individual liberty with the need for effective police investigations. The Gujarat Model’s conditional bail tried to address this, but the Supreme Court rejected its legality.
Going forward, police and courts will have to find lawful ways to investigate without infringing on fundamental rights.
Background of the Tusharbhai Shah Case
The case involved a commercial dispute where Tusharbhai Shah sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest. Despite the Supreme Court granting interim protection, police applied for his custody. The magistrate approved remand while bail was active, following the Gujarat Model.
Shah challenged this as contempt of court. The Supreme Court’s ruling ended such practices, reinforcing constitutional protections.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s rejection of the Gujarat Model of anticipatory bail is a significant victory for personal liberty in India’s criminal justice system. It ensures bail orders cannot be undermined by unlawful police custody.
The judgment also calls for reform in investigative practices to respect liberty while maintaining effective law enforcement.
Also, Read
Explained: Why Supreme Court Tights Free Speech Rules
