SUSHILA AGGARWAL v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
In this case Supreme Court ruled out that no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory or which is also called pre-arrest bail can not be restrained to any time or specific duration as the denial of bail may lead to deprivation of the fundamental right to liberty in a democratic country, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held while delivering the judgement in the case of SUSHILA AGGARWAL v. STATE OF NCT Delhi.
The reason for the enactment of sec. 438 of the CrPC was Parliamentary acceptance. Anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for certain purposes. This section is necessary to live in a free and democratic country. Everyone is presumed to be innocent till he or she is found guilty. Life and liberty are the cherished attributes of every individual. Anticipatory bail refers to an application made by the accused upon being arrested by the police to seek permission from a court that they are released. Anticipatory bail has to be applied for against a specific charge, and the petition ought to be supported with the aid of an affidavit.
when a person believes that they might face arrest on accusations of having committed a non-bailable offence, they can apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions under section 438 OF CrPC for anticipatory bail, and if the court believes it, may grant bail to the person. It is important to remember that anticipatory bail is not a matter of right, it is purely down to the discretion of the court
The Courts must not forget the character of the offence, the act of the person, the probability of his influencing the direction of Investigation or tampering of evidence, which includes intimidating witnesses and fleeing justice. A soft copy for anticipatory bail should primarily based on concrete information. The soft copy additionally should include crucial information regarding the offence and why the applicant apprehends arrest.
The Court held that protection granted to a person under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) should not be invariably limited to a fixed period and should be in favour of the accused without any restriction on time. Further, the Court 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 charges are framed, but can continue till the end of the trial, except in special or peculiar conditions. The Court reaffirmed the principles of Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) .
The bench held that a plea for anticipatory bail may be filed even earlier than the registration of FIR so as long as there’s the affordable foundation for the apprehension of arrest and readability of information. Nothing in Section 438 CrPC compels or obliges courts to impose situations restricting the comfort in different period of time or upon submitting of FIR or recording of the declaration of witnesses via way and means of the police at some stage in investigation or inquiry, Courts, relying on the seriousness of the risk of arrest.