News By/Courtesy: Parimala Ronanki | 31 Mar 2021 9:38am IST


  • overruling of term limit for granting an anticipatory bail.
  • under section 438 crpc protection granted should not invariable limited so this does not as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.
  • the procedure established by law for bereave of an individual for his autarky must be just,fair and reasonable as ideate under article 21.

Introduction: The provision of the anticipatory provision is given in section 438(1) of the CrPC in that it is given that a person has the power to seek bail if he feels that he is gonna be arrested and on him, an accusation is fallen which is of non- bailable. The only difference between normal bail and anticipatory bail is that in normal bail if a person is once arrested then if he goes and takes bail then he will get freedom but in anticipatory bail, the bail is taken way before in anticipation and as he is arrested, he will get immediate relief and he gets benefits from the humiliation and harassment that he is associated with the arrest. This provision was first enacted in the year 1973 after the 41st law commission report. This was recommended for including because whatever the arbitrary arrest happens which violates the right to personal liberty to stop this was brought. Anticipatory should not be limited by time. In the case, Gur Baksh Singh Sibbia v. the State of Punjab in this case what happened is the ministry of irrigation and power of Punjab government on him some allegations of corruption are put and for that from the court, he seeks anticipatory bail. In this case, the scope of granting anticipatory bail is quite restricted. When this case went to Punjab and Haryana high court then they said if there is a reasonable cause if we can secure a piece of incriminating evidence from them in terms of section 27 of the Indian evidence act. There we cannot grant anticipatory bail. When this case went to SC then the court first saw that whether the judgment of Punjab and Haryana high court is correct or not. After seeing this the court rejected it as they imposed a blanket restriction. And the court said that in section 438(1) when your interpreting granting of anticipatory bail then that should be seen in the respective of article 21 of the constitution of India in which protection of life and liberty is said. Further, they said that anticipatory bail is a matter of right of an individual which cannot be restricted by the time boundary. And in this, the court has the right to keep restrictions on the anticipatory bail according to the case. The further court said that on anticipatory bail those restrictions can be held under the event of section 27 any recovery of the material happens which are incriminating of those materials and that person is liable to take under custody. And also said if in that sense they are taking him into the custody there the party which is there who is doing the case they can claim limited custody or deemed custody which is given in the Deoman Upadhyaya case. Anticipatory bail should be limited by time. The SC in the case Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra overruled the Gur Baksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab case and said that granting of the anticipatory bail which is there should be limited by time. The court here said that when here you are granting an anticipatory bail then that there should be a limitation of time duration because at the time when you are granting an anticipatory bail then at that time the police investigation is generally incomplete. And if in chance if we say the live time duration expires then that person can go to regular court who is listening and trying the case then there the actual foreperson the applicant becomes the matter of securing or denying the liberty to the accused applicant. Duration of the anticipatory bail cannot be curtailed. In the case, Siddha ram Satlingappa Mehtre v. the state of Maharashtra the SC again changing its stans said that the life/ duration of anticipatory bail of an order cannot be curtailed. Sushil Aggarwal v. State of NCT Delhi As many changes happened and confusion raised in this case the court-appointed a five-judge bench and many questions were raised and the court through this said that anticipatory bail should not invariable limited for a fixed period but if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of the anticipatory bail then it is open for it to do so. Justices Mr Shah and Justice S penned separate judgments agreeing with each other. Whereas justice Arun Mishra and Justice Indra Banerjee and justice Vineeth sullen concurred with the conclusion reached by both the judges. The court also held that 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 the charges are framed but can continue till the end of the trial except the special and peculiar cases.


This Article Does Not Intend To Hurt The Sentiments Of Any Individual Community, Sect, Or Religion Etcetera. This Article Is Based Purely On The Authors Personal Views And Opinions In The Exercise Of The Fundamental Right Guaranteed Under Article 19(1)(A) And Other Related Laws Being Force In India, For The Time Being. Further, despite all efforts that have been made to ensure the accuracy and correctness of the information published, 5thVoice.News shall not be responsible for any errors caused due to human error or otherwise.

Section Editor: 5thVoice.News | 01 Apr 2021 12:12pm IST

Tags : #amendment#anticipatory bail

Latest News

Copyright Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials on these pages are copyrighted by Kalyan Krishna MediaZ Private Limited. All rights reserved. No part of these pages, either text or image may be used for any purpose. By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy and Content Policies.