SUSHILA AGGARWAL & ORS. versus STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 15-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KURIAN JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
825
SUSHILA AGGARWAL & ORS.
v.
 STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2017)
MAY 15, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH, MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Bail – Whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited
period of time – There are two divergent views: One are the line of
Judgments in support that anticipatory bail should not be for a
limited period and the others are that orders of anticipatory bail
should be of a limited duration – In the light of the conflicting views
of the different Benches of varying strength, following questions
referred to the larger Bench: (i) Whether the protection granted to
a person u/s.438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to
enable the person to surrender before the trial Court and seek
regular bail; (ii) Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end
at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the Court –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438.
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of
Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383 ;
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694 : [2010] 15  SCR 201 ;
Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and
Another (2016) 1 SCC 152 : [2015] 10  SCR 398 ;
Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra
(1996) 1 SCC 667 :  [1995]  6  Suppl.  SCR  556 ;  K.L.
Verma v. State and Another (1998) 9 SCC 348 ; Sunita
Devi v. State of Bihar and Another (2005) 1 SCC 608 :
[2004] 6  Suppl. SCR 707 ; Adri Dharan Das v. State
of W.B.  (2005) 4 SCC 303 : [ 2005] 2  SCR 188 ;
Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. and Another  (2004) 7
SCC 558 : [2004] 3  Suppl. SCR 1006 ; HDFC Bank
Limited v. J.J. Mannan (2010) 1 SCC 679 :  [2009] 16
SCR 590 ; Satpal Singh v. The State of Punjab (2018)
SCC Online SC 415 – referred to.
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 825
825
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
826
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
[1980] 3 SCR 383
   referred to
            Para 2
[2010] 15 SCR 201
               referred to
Para 3
[2015] 10 SCR 398
   referred to
Para 3
[1995]  6 Suppl. SCR 556
   referred to
Para 4
(1998) 9 SCC 348
   referred to
Para 4
[2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 707
   referred to
Para 4
[2005] 2 SCR 188
   referred to
Para 4
[2004] 3 Suppl. SCR 1006
   referred to
Para 4
[2009] 16 SCR 590
   referred to
            Para 5
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 7281-7282 of 2017.
From the Order dated 02.08.2017 of the High Court of Delhi at
New Delhi in BA No. 1415 of 2017.
Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, H. P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Ms.  Geetha
Luthra, Nipun Saxena, Aditya P. Arora, Ms. Divya Anand, Abhay Kumar,
Vineet Kumar Singh, Saurabh Mishra, Pranay Ranjan, C. K. Sucharita,
Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Ayush Anand, Shubhendu Anand, Ms. Shruti Agarwal,
Ujjwal Jain, Prateek Yadav, B. V. Balaram Das, C. S. N. Mohan Rao,
Lokesh Kumar Sharma and B. Kranthi Kumar, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
The Order of the Court was passed by
KURIAN, J. 1. Whether an anticipatory bail should be for a
limited period of time is the issue before us on which there are two
divergent views.
2. The line of judgments that anticipatory bail should not be for a
limited period places its reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of
this Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of
Punjab1.
1(1980) 2 SCC 565
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
827
3. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra
and others2  is a very detailed judgment by a Bench of two Judges on
the scope and object of an anticipatory bail. In Mhetre (supra), this
Court took the view that the Constitution Bench has held that anticipatory
bail granted by the court should ordinarily continue till the trial of the
case.  To quote:
     “94. The proper course of action ought to be that after
evaluating the averments and accusation available on the record
if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail
be granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After
hearing the Public Prosecutor the court may either reject the bail
application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court
would certainly be entitled to impose conditions for the grant of
bail. The Public Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty
to move the same court for cancellation or modifying the
conditions of bail any time if liberty granted by the court is misused.
The bail granted by the court should ordinarily be continued till the
trial of the case.
  

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.