Whether the court can restrict anticipatory bail till framing of charge without giving reasons?

 learned Additional Solicitor

General appearing for the respondents.

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.

He requests time to file counter affidavit so

as to substantiate the reasons for limiting the period

of anticipatory bail.

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.

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.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to

allow the petition. Part of the impugned order which

restricts the anticipatory bail upto framing of charge

is quashed and set aside.

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7677/2022

TARUN AGGARWAL Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Date : 11-10-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

The petitioner has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the observations made in the paragraph 24

of the impugned order vide which the learned single

Judge has restricted the anticipatory bail granted to

the petitioner only till framing of the charge.

We have heard Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned

senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.

Sarvesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the State

and Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor

General appearing for the respondents.

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.

He requests time to file counter affidavit so

as to substantiate the reasons for limiting the period

of anticipatory bail.

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.

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.

In that view of the matter, we are inclined to

allow the petition. Part of the impugned order which

restricts the anticipatory bail upto framing of charge

is quashed and set aside.

Mr. Nataraj, learned ASG submits that the

petitioner is not cooperating with the trial. On the

contrary Mr. Brijender Chahar, learned senior counsel

submits that since 25.05.2022, on each and every day,

when the matter is fixed, the petitioner is regularly

attending the same.

If there is any violation of any of the

conditions imposed by the High Court, the respondents

are always at liberty to move an application for

cancellation of bail before the appropriate court.

The special leave petition stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(Geeta Ahuja) (Anju Kapoor)

Astt. Registrar-Cum-PS Court Master

Print Page