May 16, 2018
Case name: Sushila Aggarwal & ors. v. State of NCT of Delhi
Date of Judgment: May 15, 2018
In this recent case, the Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was confronted with the issue whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time on which there are two divergent views.
The Bench stated that there were a line of judgments that anticipatory bail should not be for a limited period and other cases which expressed the opinion that anticipatory bail granted by the court should ordinarily continue till the trial of the case.
In the case Amicus Curiae Shri Harin P. Raval, contended that in the light of the two conflicting schools of thought the matter required consideration by a larger Bench.
The Apex Court made reference to its judgment in the case of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab wherein the Court dealt with the question of duration of anticipatory bail. The Court also stated that in Sibbia case there are indications that anticipatory bail may be for a limited period.
In view of the aforesaid and in view of the conflicting views of the different Benches of varying strength, the Supreme Court has now opined that the legal position needs to be authoritatively settled in clear and unambiguous terms and the matter has now been referred for consideration by a larger Bench.
The issues referred by the Court are:
Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to 17 surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail?
Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court?
The entire case can be accessed here.
 (1980) 2 SCC 565