{"id":224696,"date":"2020-01-29T12:16:32","date_gmt":"2020-01-29T06:46:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=224696"},"modified":"2020-01-31T11:01:43","modified_gmt":"2020-01-31T05:31:43","slug":"5-judge-bench-holds-no-time-limit-could-be-fixed-while-granting-anticipatory-bail","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/01\/29\/5-judge-bench-holds-no-time-limit-could-be-fixed-while-granting-anticipatory-bail\/","title":{"rendered":"5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: In a significant ruling, a 5-judge bench of Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet\u00a0Saran, MR Shah, and Ravindra Bhat, JJ has unanimously ruled that\u00a0the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time<\/span>.<\/em><\/p>\n

While all 5 judges gave a unanimous verdict, MR Shah and Ravindra Bhat, JJ gave elaborate separate opinions.<\/p>\n

Justice Shah <\/strong><\/span>was of the opinion that the normal rule should be not to limit the operation of the order in relation to a period of time. He, however, added,<\/p>\n

\u201cthe conditions can be imposed by the concerned court while granting pre\u00adarrest bail order including limiting the operation of the order in relation to a period of time if the circumstances so warrant, more particularly the stage at which the \u201canticipatory bail\u201d application is moved, namely, whether the same is at the stage before the FIR is filed or at the stage when the FIR is filed and the investigation is in progress or at the stage when the investigation is complete and the charge sheet is filed.\u201d<\/p>\n

Justice Bhat<\/strong><\/span> in his opinion wrote:<\/p>\n

\u201cit would not be in the larger interests of society if the court, by judicial interpretation, limits the exercise of that power: the danger of such an exercise would be that in fractions, little by little, the discretion, advisedly kept wide, would shrink to a very narrow and unrecognizably tiny portion, thus frustrating the objective behind the provision, which has stood the test of time, these 46 years.\u201d<\/p>\n

Summary of the verdict<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>\n

Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr. PC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.PC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. <\/em>The Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there are specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the court to impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event) etc.<\/p>\n

Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court, or when charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial.<\/em> Again, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.<\/p>\n

Points to be kept in mind by courts, dealing with applications under Section 438, Cr. PC<\/strong>:<\/span><\/p>\n