The Supreme Court hearing a petition for anticipatory bail held that such plea was not maintainable in circumstances of the present case where anticipatory bail was sought in cancellation of regular bail since the person released on regular bail was already in constructive custody of the law.

The case was brought before the apex court by the petitioner who was initially granted a regular bail under section 15 of the environment protection act, 1986 which was later canceled due to the non-appearance of the petitioner due to which he was arrested again. Upon subsequent bail of the petitioner, he sought anticipatory bail from Punjab and Haryana High court which rejected the plea which led to the SLP in the Supreme Court seeking the same.

The court rejected the plea on the grounds that the same was not maintainable. The court dwelling on the fact that a person on bail was already in 'constructive custody' of the law stated that "A person released on bail is already in the constructive custody of the law. If the law requires him to come back to custody for specified reasons, we are afraid that an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest will not lie. There cannot be an apprehension of arrest by a person already in the constructive custody of the law."

After making the aforementioned observations, the court rejected the prayer while dismissing the special leave petition. However, the court directed that if the petitioner surrenders within two weeks and seeks regular bail, the same must be considered on the same day.