You are currently viewing Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 2020 5 SCC 1.

Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 2020 5 SCC 1.

Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, 2020 5 SCC 1.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Issue: The Hon’ble Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court decided the reference made to the larger bench on the following two issues:-

  • Whether the protection granted to a person 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?
  • Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court?

Held: 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. However, if there are any special or peculiar features necessitating the court to limit the tenure of anticipatory bail, it is open for it to do so.

  • It is not essential that an application for anticipatory bail should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear and there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest.
  • It may be advisable for the court, which is approached with an application under Section 438, depending on the seriousness of the threat (of arrest) to issue notice to the public prosecutor and obtain facts, even while granting limited interim anticipatory bail.

Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. The Court would be free to decide the nature and extent of restrictions to be imposed in accordance with section 437(3) and 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

  • Order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
  • An order of anticipatory bail does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges against the person who seeks and is granted prearrest bail.
  • The investigation officer would be free to take limited custody or deemed custody of the accused for the purpose of section 27 of Evidence Act. However, there would no need for separate surrender and need for bail.
  • It is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, for a direction under Section 439(2) to arrest the accused, in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial, etc.
  • The correctness of an order granting bail, can be considered by the appellate or superior court at the behest of the state or investigating agency, and set aside on the ground that the court granting it did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances.

See Full Judgement

Leave a Reply