Anticipatory bail should be time-limited, with regular bail decided by the trial court after investigation advances.

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 is granted in anticipation of arrest at a stage when investigation may still be incomplete, so the court granting such protection should ordinarily limit its duration. Once that period ends, the bail question should be left to the regular court seized of the criminal case, which can assess the material then available on its own merits, especially after progress in investigation or filing of the charge-sheet. The Supreme Court upheld this approach and confirmed that the accused should move the regular court for bail after expiry of anticipatory protection.

---

---

Issues: Whether anticipatory bail granted at an incomplete-investigation stage should be of limited duration and whether, on expiry, the accused should be directed to seek regular bail before the trial court.

Analysis: Anticipatory bail under Section 438 is granted in anticipation of arrest and at a stage when the investigation may still be incomplete. For that reason, the court granting such protection should ordinarily limit its duration and should not, after the period expires, continue to substitute itself for the court seized of the criminal case. Once the investigation progresses or the charge-sheet is filed, the regular court is the proper forum to assess the material and decide bail on its own merits.

Conclusion: The direction requiring the petitioner to move the regular court for bail was in law and the challenge to the High Court's order failed.

Final Conclusion: The petition was dismissed and the High Court's approach limiting anticipatory bail and leaving regular bail to the trial court was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Anticipatory bail should ordinarily be limited in duration, and after its expiry the question of bail should be left to the regular court assessing the case on the material then available.

---