Thursday, Aug 06, 2020 | Last Update : 07:35 AM IST

135th Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra46826530552116476 Tamil Nadu2734602148154461 Andhra Pradesh1864611043541681 Karnataka151449746792804 Delhi1402321261164044 Uttar Pradesh104388605581857 West Bengal83800589621846 Telangana7095850814576 Gujarat65704485612529 Bihar6203140760349 Assam4816233429115 Rajasthan4667932832732 Haryana3779631226448 Odisha3768124483258 Madhya Pradesh3508225414912 Kerala279561629988 Jammu and Kashmir2239614856417 Punjab1901512491462 Jharkhand140705199129 Chhatisgarh10109761369 Uttarakhand8008484795 Goa7075511460 Tripura5520367528 Puducherry4147253758 Manipur301818147 Himachal Pradesh2879171013 Nagaland24056594 Arunachal Pradesh179011053 Chandigarh120671520 Meghalaya9173305 Sikkim7832971 Mizoram5022820
  India   All India  30 Jan 2020  No time limit could be attached for anticipatory bail: SC

No time limit could be attached for anticipatory bail: SC

THE ASIAN AGE. | PRAMOD KUMAR
Published : Jan 30, 2020, 2:22 am IST
Updated : Jan 30, 2020, 2:22 am IST

This court holds that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period.

Supreme Court of India (Photo: PTI)
 Supreme Court of India (Photo: PTI)

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that grant of pre-arrest or anticipatory bail to an accused apprehending arrest should not “invariable” be saddled with any time frame as it refused to interfere with the scheme under the Code Criminal Procedure as framed by the parliament.

“This court holds that the protection granted to a    person under Section 438 CrPC should not invariably be limited to a fixed period. It should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on   time,” said a five-judge Constitution Bench of justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R.Shah and S. Ravindra Bhat.

 

Having held that no time limit could be attached to the grant of anticipatory bail, the Bench in its conclusion said, “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 be8ing tied to a event.”

“The specter of arbitrary and heavy-handed arrests: too often, to harass and humiliate citizens, and oftentimes, at the interest of powerful individuals (and not to further any meaningful investigation into offences) led to the enactment of Section 438”,  Justice Bhat said in his separate but concurring judgment.

 

The top court constitution bench said this while answering a reference whether protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail.

The other question referred to the constitution bench was whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.

Answering the second question under reference, the court said, “The life or duration of an anticipatory bail order does not end normally at the time and  stage when the accused is summoned  the court or charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial.”

 

However, the Supreme Court said, “if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the te-nure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so”.

Tags: anticipatory bail, supreme court