ANTICIPATORY BAIL ONCE OBTAINED RUNS TILL TRIAL’S CONCLUSION
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. 272273OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 693694OF 2020)
DR. RAJESH PRATAP GIRI ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. & ANR. ... RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
MARCH 05, 2021
LL 2021 SC 140
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the High Court erred in stating that the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant by the Trial Court came to an end as the chargesheet
had been filed. The learned counsel relied on the recent Five Judge Bench decision of this Court in Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. v. State (NCT ofDelhi) and Anr., (2020) 5 SCC 1 to submit that there was no principle of law which required that anticipatory bail once granted automatically comes to an end on the filing of the chargesheet.
5. While the learned counsel for the State conceded that the law on
this point was authoritatively decided by the judgment of this Court in
Sushila Aggarwal (supra), he submitted that the same was
pronounced subsequent to the impugned orders passed by the High
Court. The learned counsel further submitted that after the grant of
anticipatory bail the appellant had not appeared before the Trial
Court. The counsel for the complainant also reiterated the same.
6. The issue involved in the present case, as to whether anticipatory
bail once granted, lapses or comes to an end on the filing of a chargesheet
has been decided by this Court, in the case of Sushila Aggarwal
(supra). Ravindra Bhat, J., in his concurring opinion holds as follows:
“77.3. In these circumstances, the mere fact that an
accused is given relief under Section 438 at one
stage, per se does not mean that upon the filing of
a chargesheet,
he is necessarily to surrender
or/and apply for regular bail. The analogy to
“deemed bail” under Section 167(2) with anticipatory
bail leads this Court to conclude that the mere
subsequent event of the filing of a chargesheet
cannot compel the accused to surrender and seek
regular bail. As a matter of fact, interestingly, if
indeed, if a chargesheet
is filed where the accused ison anticipatory bail, the normal implication would be
that there was no occasion for the investigating
agency or the police to require his custody, because
there would have been nothing in his behaviour
requiring such a step. In other words, an accused,
who is granted anticipatory bail would continue to
be at liberty when the chargesheet
is filed, the
natural implication is that there is no occasion for a
direction by the court that he be arrested and further
that he had cooperated with the investigation.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. The same is reiterated in the section headed final conclusions
wherein the Court has laid down certain principles on the basis of the
two concurring opinions in the following words:
“91.2. As regards the second question referred to this
Court, it is 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.
Again, 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.”
(emphasis supplied)
8. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the High Court
wrongly held that the anticipatory bail granted to the appellant by the
Trial Court vide order dated 21.10.2019 had come to an end with the
filing of the chargesheet.
We therefore set aside the impugned orders
passed by the High Court and restore the anticipatory bail granted to
the appellant by the Trial Court vide order dated 21.10.2019.
9. With respect to the submission of the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the State, as also the complainant, that the appellant isnot appearing before the trial court, we reiterate that it is always open
to the parties to move an application before the concerned Trial Court
for appropriate orders regarding the cancellation of anticipatory bail
granted to the appellant.
10. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
11. As a sequel to the above, pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed.
....….......................................J
(N.V. RAMANA)
..........................................J
(SURYA KANT)
….......................................J
(ANIRUDDHA BOSE)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 05, 2021
WordPress.com
