Scope and Duration of Anticipatory Bail: Supreme Court Refers Key Questions to Larger Bench

The case of Sushila Aggarwal & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. raised an important legal question regarding the scope and duration of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The Supreme Court, faced with conflicting precedents, referred the matter to a larger bench to settle the issue conclusively.

At the heart of the case was the divergence in judicial opinion on whether anticipatory bail should be time-bound or whether it should continue till the conclusion of the trial unless canceled by the court. The Supreme Court acknowledged the need for clarity and formulated two specific questions for consideration by a larger bench:

• Should the protection granted under Section 438 CrPC be for a fixed period to enable the person to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail?
• Should the life of an anticipatory bail end at the stage when the accused is summoned by the court?

Arguments by the Petitioners

The petitioners contended that:

• The Constitution Bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) had clearly laid down that anticipatory bail should not be limited in time.
• In Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that anticipatory bail should ordinarily continue till the trial.
• Any restriction on the duration of anticipatory bail was contrary to legislative intent and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Arguments by the Respondents

The respondents argued that:

• The decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) stated that anticipatory bail should be for a limited duration and that the accused should move for regular bail after the investigation progresses.
• Allowing unlimited anticipatory bail would result in bypassing the trial court’s authority.
• Section 438 CrPC was meant only to protect individuals from undue harassment and not to grant them indefinite immunity from arrest.

Supreme Court’s Observations

In its order, the Supreme Court noted the presence of conflicting judgments:

“The Constitution Bench in Sibbia does not, in so many words, lay down that once an anticipatory bail is granted, it remains valid forever.”

The Court referred to its previous rulings in cases like HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan (2010), where it was held that anticipatory bail should only last until the completion of the investigation and filing of the charge sheet.

The Court also cited Satpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2018), stating:

“The protection under Section 438 CrPC is available only till the accused is summoned based on the charge sheet. Thereafter, he must seek regular bail.”

Reference to Larger Bench

Considering the conflicting legal interpretations, the Court concluded that the issue needed authoritative settlement and referred the matter to a larger bench for final adjudication.

“We are of the prima facie view that the Constitution Bench in Sibbia has not laid down the law that once an anticipatory bail, it is an anticipatory bail forever.”

Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice of India for further consideration.

Conclusion

The issue of whether anticipatory bail should be time-bound remains one of the most debated aspects of criminal jurisprudence in India. This referral to a larger bench is expected to bring much-needed clarity and ensure uniformity in judicial approach.

Petitioner Name: Sushila Aggarwal & Ors..
Respondent Name: State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Delhi.
Judgment Date: 15-05-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sushila Aggarwal & O vs State (NCT of Delhi) Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 15-05-2018.pdf