A bench of Justice BR Gavai and BV Nagarathna recently held that the order passed by the High Court is bad and set aside that part of the order which granted anticipatory bail to an accused till the framing of charges. The Apex Court also held that if such an order (bail till framing of charges) is passed, reasons are required to be given for that.

The Court noted the facts that Mr. Nataraj, learned ASG submits that the 3-Judges’ Bench of this Court in the case of Nathu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2021 (6) SCC 64 has categorically held that though normally, the anticipatory bail should not be granted for a specific period, if the facts and circumstances are so made out, the Court can limit the tenure of the anticipatory bail.

The Court observed that "No doubt that Mr. Nataraj, learned ASG is justified in relying on the judgment of this Court wherein this Court has held that normally the anticipatory bail cannot be granted for a limited period, however, if the facts and circumstance so warrant, the court would be justified in limiting it for a particular period."

The Court ordered that "We are not inclined to grant time to file reply in as much as the counter affidavit cannot supplement the reasons given in the impugned order. It is the impugned order which would reflect the mind of the judge as to what were the peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted limiting the anticipatory bail for a particular period. The perusal of the entire order would reveal that there is no discussion at all with regard to the same. "

Case Details:-

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 7677/2022
TARUN AGGARWAL Petitioner(s)
 VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)

Read the Complete order on the following link:-

https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/22478/22478_2022_12_7_38809_Order_11-Oct-2022.pdf