38.6c New Delhi, India, Monday, April 15, 2024

Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited By Time: Says SC

By LawStreet News Network      29 January, 2020 03:01 PM      0 Comments
Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Limited By Time: Says SC

The Supreme Court of India on 29 January, 2020 ruled that no time limit could be fixed for granting an anticipatory bail. The bail could continue until the end of the trial. The judgement was delivered by a five-judge constitutional bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat

The bench had reserved its judgement in the case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr., on 24 October, 2019. 

Previous decisions in cases such as Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors v. State of Punjab, Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others, have stated that anticipatory bail should not be for a limited period of time, while cases such as Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra call for the limited duration of the anticipatory bail.

The ApexCourt, however, opined that the anticipatory bail could be extended with suitable conditions, under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

The pre-arrest bail does not end when accused is summoned. However, it is open for the court to do so. Such relief, however, does not restrict power of police to investigate an offence, the bench ruled.

“Parliament has not thought it appropriate to curtail the rights of citizens. It will be dangerous to restrict such a power of arrest,” said the bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra. 

Right to life and personal liberty are civil rights that every individual possesses by virtue of being human, which are acknowledged through Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1949. The concept of bail flows from these natural rights and its practice is prescribed in Article 22 (2) as a working theorem and its corollaries can be found in the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

Anticipatory Bail is granted before the arrest takes place and can be invoked only if a person is ‘apprehending an arrest’ for a non-bailable offence. Under Section 438, the person can move either to the High Court or the Court of Sessions with the same apprehension and assuage the court to grant him an order under which he would be entitled to be released in case he is arrested. One can seek an anticipatory bail even before an FIR is filed, given that one has a reason to believe in a future arrest.

Author: Nandini Gandhi

Share this article:

User Avatar

Leave a feedback about this

Trending Legal Insiders
Need to safeguard judiciary from unwarranted pressures: 21 ex-judges write letter to CJI

21 ex-judges write to CJI Chandrachud urging protection of judiciary from pressures undermining its integrity and autonomy.

15 April, 2024 12:17 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC notice to ED; declines early date on plea by Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal against arrest

SC issues notice to ED, declines early hearing on Delhi CM Kejriwal's plea against arrest in liquor scam.

15 April, 2024 03:08 PM


Trending Judiciary
Location sharing of accused as bail condition: SC directs Google to explain how its PIN location-sharing work

Supreme Court directs Google to explain its PIN location-sharing feature as bail condition for accused, raising privacy concerns. Details sought on technical aspects.

09 April, 2024 02:06 PM
Trending Judiciary
'Can't jail everyone for making allegations against CM,' SC tells Tamil Nadu government

Supreme Court rebukes Tamil Nadu, saying not everyone making allegations against CM can be jailed; restores bail for YouTuber Sattai.

09 April, 2024 02:07 PM
Trending Judiciary
HC dismisses Kejriwal's plea challenging arrest by ED in liquor policy case

Delhi High Court dismisses Arvind Kejriwal's plea challenging his arrest by ED in liquor policy case, ruling it legal. Kejriwal remains in Tihar jail pending Supreme Court relief.

09 April, 2024 05:22 PM
Trending Judiciary
SC allows man to undergo potency test as wife claims marriage not consummated more than 7 years of alliance [Read Judgment]

Supreme Court permits potency test for husband in divorce case where wife alleges marriage unconsummated after 7+ years.

09 April, 2024 05:38 PM


Join Group

Signup for Our Newsletter

Get Exclusive access to members only content by email