Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi)
AIR 2020 SC 831; SLP (Crl) Nos. 7281-7282 of 201720201 min read
The case in brief30-second read
- Facts
- A reference was made to a Constitution Bench because of conflicting decisions on whether anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC should be limited in time and whether it should end when the accused is summoned by the court.
- Issue
- Whether anticipatory bail must be limited to a fixed period, and whether its life ends at the summoning of the accused or the framing of charge.
- Held
- The protection under S.438 need not be limited to a fixed period and should ordinarily continue till the end of the trial. It does not end when the accused is summoned or the charge sheet is filed. The court may, in the facts of a particular case, impose a time limit or other conditions. Decisions taking the contrary view were overruled.
- Principle
- Anticipatory bail is ordinarily not time-bound and may last till the end of the trial.
Facts
- A reference was made to a Constitution Bench because of conflicting decisions on whether anticipatory bail under S.438 CrPC should be limited in time and whether it should end when the accused is summoned by the court.
Issue
- Whether anticipatory bail must be limited to a fixed period, and whether its life ends at the summoning of the accused or the framing of charge.
Held
- The protection under S.438 need not be limited to a fixed period and should ordinarily continue till the end of the trial. It does not end when the accused is summoned or the charge sheet is filed. The court may, in the facts of a particular case, impose a time limit or other conditions. Decisions taking the contrary view were overruled.
Cite this
Citation
Sushila Aggarwal v State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2020 SC 831; SLP (Crl) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2017Reported: Supreme Court of India judgment, SLP (Crl) Nos. 7281-7282 of 2017 (api.sci.gov.in). This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.