Petitioners facing arrest under multiple IPC offences in a family-dispute assault case sought fresh anticipatory bail after failing to execute sureties within the time fixed by an earlier order, which auto-dismissed. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal, the court held time-limited automatic dismissal improper and extended the surety period by one month.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
P. DHANABAL,J.,
The petitioners who apprehend arrest in the hand of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 448, 427, 307
& 379 of IPC in connection with the Cr. No.239 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.
1 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
shall stands dismissed automatically, that due to covid pandamic, the petitioners were unable to execute the sureties within the stipulated time and therefore, he filed this petition for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
2 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
order granting anticipatory bail by this Court shall stands automatically dismissed. The petitioners were unable to produce sureties before the concerned Magistrate within the stipulated period. Now they have filed this petition once again to grant anticipatory bail to them.
Court in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281-7282 of 2017, in which, in the final conclusions in para nos.1 to 3 and 12, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
"FINAL CONCLUSIONS:
In view of the concurring judgments of Justice M.R. Shah and of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat with Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice Vineet Saran agreeing with them, the following answers to the reference are set out:
(1) Regarding Question No.1, this Court holds that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should not invariably be limited to a fixed period; it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time. Normal conditions under Section 437(3) read with Section 438(2) should be imposed; if there are specific facts or features in regard to any offence, it is open for the Court to impose any appropriate condition (including fixed nature of relief, or its being tied to an event) etc.,
(2) As regards the second question referred to this Court, it is
3 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
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.
1, This Court, in the light of the above discussion in the two judgments, and in the light of the answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind by Courts, dealing with applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
(1) Consistent with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab", when a person complains of apprehension of arrest and approaches for order, the application should be based on concrete facts (and not vague or general allegations) relatable to one or other specific offence. The application seeking anticipatory bail should contain bare essential facts relating to the offence, and why the applicant reasonably apprehends arrest, as well as his side of the story. These are essential for the Court which should consider his application, to evaluate the threat or apprehension, its gravity or seriousness and the appropriateness of any condition that may have to be imposed. It is not essential that an application should be moved only after an FIR is filed; it can be moved earlier, so long as the facts are clear that there is reasonable basis for apprehending arrest.
(2) 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.
(3) Nothing in Section 438 Cr.P.C. compels or obliges Courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time, or upon filing of FIR, or recording of statement of any witness, by the police, during
4 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
investigation or inquiry etc., While considering an application (for grant of anticipatory bail) the Court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence (including intimidating witnesses), likelihood of fleeing justice (such as leaving the country), etc., The Courts would be justified - and ought to impose conditions spelt out in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. [by virtue of Section 438(2)]. The need to impose other restrictive conditions, would have to be judged on a case by case basis, and depending upon the materials produced by the State or the investigating agency. Such special or other restrictive conditions may be imposed if the case or cases warrant, but should not be imposed in a routine manner, in all cases. Likewise, conditions which limit the grant of anticipatory bail may be granted, if they are required in the facts of any case or cases; however, such limiting conditions may not be invariably imposed.
(12) The observations in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors (and other similar judgments) that no restrictive conditions at all can be imposed, while granting anticipatory bail are hereby overruled. Likewise, the decision in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and subsequent decisions (including K.L. Verma v. State & Anr, Sunita Devi v. State of Bihar & Anr, Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, Nirmal Jeet Kaur v. State of M.P. & Anr., HDFC Bank Limited v. J.J. Mannan; Satpal Singh v. the State of Punjab and Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar) which lay down such restrictive conditions or terms limiting the grant of anticipatory bail, to a period of time are hereby overruled".
5 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
Section 438 Cr.P.C. compels or obliges Courts to impose conditions limiting relief in terms of time and that the protection granted to a person under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. should not invariably by limited to a fixed period and it should inure in favour of the accused without any restriction on time.
of.
mjs
6 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
To
P.DHANABAL,J mjs
7 of 8
Crl. O.P. No.22422 of 2024
CRL O.P. No.22422 of 2024
12.09.2024
8 of 8
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail already granted with a time-limited surety condition that lapsed should be re-granted or the time extended?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)Relied on¶7
Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos.7281-7282 of 2017
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of PunjabReferred
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of MaharashtraOverruled
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioners (accused in Cr. No.239 of 2020)
State (Sub-Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station, Tiruppur District)
P. Dhanabal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
