Validity of pre-arrest bail: SC refers issue to larger bench

New Delhi, May 22 

The Supreme Court has taken note of its "conflicting" verdicts on the vexatious legal question whether the grant of anticipatory bail to an accused was for a limited period or does it remain in force till the trial concludes, and referred the matter to a larger bench.

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) provides for grant of pre-arrest or anticipatory bail by the High Court or a sessions court to a person who apprehends arrest in a serious criminal case. 

The apex court, in its judgements, has given conflicting views on the issue. 

While one set of verdicts say that anticipatory bail "should not be for a limited period" and remain in force till the conclusion of the criminal trial, the other judgements have opined that it should be for a limited period "so as to enable the person to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail".

A three-judge bench of Justices Kurian Joseph, Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Navin Sinha pointed to the conflicting views of the apex court on anticipatory bail and its validity period and referred the issue to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dipak Misra for setting up of a constitution bench to render an authoritative finding.

"In the light of the conflicting views of the different benches of varying strength, we are of the opinion that the legal position needs to be authoritatively settled in clear and unambiguous terms. Therefore, we refer the following questions for consideration by a larger Bench. 

"Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 CrPC should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and seek regular bail.

"Whether the life of an anticipatory bail should end at the time and stage when the accused is summoned by the court," the court said.

A constitution bench in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others versus state of Punjab had held that anticipatory bail should not be for a limited period and should "ordinarily continue till the trial of the case", it noted. 

"The other line of judgments is that orders of anticipatory bail should be of a limited duration. Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh versus state of Maharashtra is one of the earlier decisions of a three Judge Bench...," the court said while referring the case to the CJI. - PTI