2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SC - Indian Laws

Anticipatory Bail: No Fixed Period, Tailored Conditions for Accused

Sushila Aggarwal and others Versus State (NCT of Delhi) and another

The court ruled that protection under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not have a fixed period and should favor the accused without time restrictions. ... Scope of anticipatory bail - period of protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - ability of the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail - life of an anticipatory bail - the questions are referred for consideration by a larger Bench. 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 surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail? - HELD THAT:- There is no offence, per se, which stands excluded from the purview of Section 438, - except the offences mentioned in Section 438 (4). In other words, anticipatory bail can be granted, having regard to all the circumstances, in respect of all offences. At the same time, if there are indications in any special law or statute, which exclude relief under Section 438 (1) they would have to be duly considered. Also, whether anticipatory offences should be granted, in the given facts and circumstances of any case, where the allegations relating to the commission of offences of a serious nature, with certain special conditions, is a matter of discretion to be exercised, having regard to the nature of the offences, the facts shown, the background of the applicant, the likelihood of his fleeing justice (or not fleeing justice); likelihood of co-operation or non-co-operation with the investigating agency or police, etc. There can be no inflexible time frame for which an order of anticipatory bail can continue. The courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court? - HELD THAT:- If a charge-sheet is filed where the accused is on anticipatory bail, the normal implication would be that there was no occasion for the investigating agency or the police to require his custody, because there would have been nothing in his behavior requiring such a step. In other words, an accused, who is granted anticipatory bail would continue to be at liberty when the charge sheet is filed, the natural implication is that there is no occasion for a direction by the Court that he be arrested and further that he had cooperated with the investigation. At the same time, however, at any time during the investigation were any occasion to arise calling for intervention of the court for infraction of any of the conditions imposed under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) or the violation of any other condition imposed in the given facts of a case, recourse can always be had under Section 439(2). Section 438 (3) states that when a person is granted anticipatory bail, is later arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station “on such accusation”, and is willing to give bail, “he shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1)”. The order granting anticipatory bail, is also- as noticed earlier, and in several previous decisions, a “direction” under this Section 438 “that in the event of such arrest” the applicant be released on bail - Section 438 (3) outlines the steps to be taken, in the event of arrest of one who has been granted relief under Section 438 (1). In the event of non-compliance with any or all conditions, imposed by the court, the concerned agency or the police, a direction can be sought from the court under Section 439 (2). Thus, unless circumstances to the contrary: in the form of behaviour of the accused suggestive of his fleeing from justice, or evading the authority or jurisdiction of the court, or his intimidating witnesses, or trying to intimidate them, or violate any condition imposed while granting anticipatory bail, the law does not require the person to surrender to the court upon summons for trial being served on him. Subject to compliance with the conditions imposed, the anticipatory bail given to a person, can continue till end of the trial. Issues Involved:1. Whether the protection granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period.2. Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Whether the protection granted under Section 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.The judgment examines the historical context and legislative intent behind Section 438 Cr.P.C., emphasizing its purpose to protect individual liberty and prevent harassment through unwarranted arrests. The court reiterates that Section 438 is designed to secure personal liberty and should not be unduly restricted by judicial interpretation. The court highlights that anticipatory bail should not be limited to a fixed period unless specific circumstances warrant such a limitation. The court refers to the Constitution Bench decision in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia (1980), which held that anticipatory bail should not be limited in time unless there are specific reasons for doing so. The court also notes that the power to grant anticipatory bail is wide and should be exercised judiciously, considering the facts of each case.The court overrules the decisions in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh (1996) and subsequent cases that imposed time-related or event-related conditions on anticipatory bail. It emphasizes that such conditions should not be imposed routinely but only in cases with special circumstances. The court concludes that anticipatory bail should inure in favor of the accused without any restriction on time, though courts may impose appropriate conditions based on the nature of the offense and the facts of the case.Issue 2: Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court.The court addresses the concern of whether anticipatory bail should end upon the filing of a charge sheet or the summoning of the accused. It refers to the analogy of 'deemed bail' under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., which continues even after the filing of a charge sheet. The court holds that the mere filing of a charge sheet does not necessitate the surrender of the accused or the need to apply for regular bail. The court emphasizes that anticipatory bail can continue till the end of the trial unless there are specific reasons to limit its duration.The court clarifies that anticipatory bail orders should not be 'blanket' in nature, meaning they should not enable the accused to commit further offenses and claim indefinite protection. The court also notes that anticipatory bail does not limit the rights of the police to investigate the charges against the accused. The court concludes that anticipatory bail can continue after the filing of the charge sheet till the end of the trial, subject to compliance with conditions imposed by the court.Final Conclusions:1. The protection granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favor of the accused without any restriction on time. Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed, and specific conditions may be imposed based on the facts of the case.2. 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. Courts may limit the tenure of anticipatory bail if there are special or peculiar features necessitating such limitation.The court also provides guiding principles for dealing with applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the need for concrete facts, the discretion of the court, and the imposition of appropriate conditions based on the nature of the offense and the facts of the case.