LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 12 August 2026

Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what approach must courts adopt while interpreting restrictions on the grant of anticipatory bail?

UNION OF INDIA v. SUNIL BIYANI
2026 INSC 849
Coram: Dipankar Datta; Sheel Nagu
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.69 Central Goods and Services …📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Courts should lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 that are not found in the provision itself, since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, and an over-generous infusion of constraints not contemplated by the legislature would make the provision constitutionally vulnerable.

Headnote

Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.69 — Anticipatory bail — Sine qua non — Communication of order — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Interim relief — Ancillary to main relief — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.438 — Constitution of India — Article 226 — Interim relief only ancillary to main relief — Extended to pre-arrest bail — Held: It is a settled position of law that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be used for the sole purpose of granting interim relief when the petition itself is held not maintainable, since an interim relief can only be granted in aid of and ancillary to the main relief; supplanting this principle to applications seeking pre-arrest bail, while dismissing such a petition on the ground that it is not maintainable, the High Court or the Sessions Court cannot extend or grant protection in the nature of interim relief that could be granted during the pendency of the application. (¶8, 9, 10, 11, 12) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — s.69 — Order authorising arrest, sine qua non for anticipatory bail — Must be communicated — Held further: An order under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest is a sine qua non to maintain an application seeking anticipatory bail, since it is only upon such an order being passed that the person becomes an accused open to arrest; by extension of the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative action, communication of such an order to the person sought to be arrested must be read into the statute as mandatory, failing which a catch-22 situation would arise where the accused can neither apply for anticipatory bail nor become aware of the order to challenge it. (¶16, 17, 18, 21, 22) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.438 — Personal liberty — Restrictions not to be read in — Held further: Since denial of bail amounts to deprivation of personal liberty, courts must lean against the imposition of unnecessary restrictions on the scope of Section 438 that are not found in the provision itself, as an over-generous infusion of constraints not contemplated by the legislature would make the provision constitutionally vulnerable, the right to personal freedom not being made to depend on compliance with unreasonable restrictions. (¶19)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 19A 5-Judge Bench of this Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab[^14], which has also been relied upon by the Bench in Radhika Agarwal (supra), intertwined personal liberty as an important facet of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[^15] (equivalent to Section 482, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023[^16]) and cautioned against an interpretation which imposes unreasonable restrictions. The instructive passage from Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (supra) reads thus:
Acts & Sections
s.69 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s.70 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017s.132 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017Rule 8 Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017Article 226 Constitution of IndiaArticle 20(3) Constitution of IndiaArticle 21 Constitution of Indias.438 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of UNION OF INDIA v. SUNIL BIYANI — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can a High Court, while dismissing an application seeking pre-arrest bail on the ground that it is not maintainable, simultaneously grant protection from arrest in the nature of interim relief for a specified period?Is an order passed by the Commissioner under Section 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest a necessary precondition for a person to maintain an application seeking anticipatory bail?Is the Commissioner required to communicate an order passed under Section 69 of the CGST Act to the person sought to be arrested before the arrest is effected?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections