Anticipatory bail can be given till completion of trial – Supreme Court

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

  Anticipatory bail can be given till completion of trial – Supreme Court

---

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

---

• Context – A Constitution bench of Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail should not be limited by time under ordinary circumstances. The bench also discussed in the judgement the impact of recovery under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act on the bail granted and concluded that an accused released on anticipatory bail need not surrender and seek regular bail for recovery under Section 27 of Evidence Act.  
• Background – In this regard, the bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M. R. Shah and Ravindra Bhat in the case Sushila Aggarwal and Ravindra Bhat in the case Sushila Aggarwal and others v State of NCT of Delhiand otherslargely re-affirmed the principles laid down in the case Shri ShriGurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab (1980).
• The Sibbia judgment – 

1. Sibiajugement means Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab case on 9 April, 1980.
2. The Sibbia judgment, also by a five-judge bench, was considering the correctness of a judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court which had restricted the scope of grant of anticipatory bail. The High Court, among other things, had held that in cases wherever a reasonable cause to secure incriminating material in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act could be made out, anticipatory bail should not be granted.
3. In Sibbia judgement, the SC disapproved the imposition of such a blanket restriction. The Court in that case held that while granting bail, the Court can impose a condition that in the event of a possibility of Section 27 recovery, the accused will be liable to be taken into custody. It was also added that the benefit of Section 27 can be claimed even in respect of "limited custody" or "deemed custody".

• Deemed Custody – In State of U.P. v Deoman Upadhyaya, the Court had discussed a concept of "deemed custody" for the purpose of Section 27.
• Conclusion - From these two judgments, the Constitution Bench in Sushila Aggarwal held that the "limited custody" or “deemed custody", which the police has over the accused released on anticipatory bail when he appears before the investigating officer as per the bail conditions, would satisfy the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

Read more on - Polity | Economy | Schemes | S&T | Environment

Join UPSC Self Prep course | Online Course (PT Gurukul)  | Covid Special Course | Join PT courses

* Content sourced from free internet sources (publications, PIB site, international sites, etc.). Take your own subscriptions. Copyrights acknowledged.