Must give reasons if Limiting Anticipatory Bail - SC

The Supreme Court has ordered that justifications must be provided for limiting anticipatory bail until the charge is framed.

The petitioner came before the court feeling resentful of the comments made in paragraph 24 of the challenged order, according to which the single Judge had limited the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner to the period following the charge's formulation. The petition was being heard by the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna.

Mr. Nataraj, ASG stated that the court held in the case of Nathu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. that although ordinarily anticipatory bail should not be granted for a specific duration, the court can limit the tenure of the anticipatory bail if the facts and circumstances are so made out.

In order to support the justifications for limiting the duration of anticipatory bail, he asked for more time to prepare a rebuttal affidavit.

Whether or not the petitioner might receive anticipatory bail was the question up for discussion before the bench.

The Supreme Court stated that there is no question that Mr. Nataraj, ASG is justified in relying on the decision of this Court, which held that ordinarily anticipatory bail cannot be granted for a limited period, but that the court would be justified in doing so if the facts and circumstances so warrant.

"We are not inclined to provide time to file reply in as far as the counter affidavit cannot enhance the reasons offered in the challenged judgement," the bench stated. The judge's thoughts on what special features and circumstances justified limiting the anticipatory bail for a specific amount of time are reflected in the disputed ruling. The review of the full order would show that there is absolutely no discussion over the same.

The Supreme Court granted the petition in light of the aforementioned.

Tarun Aggarwal vs Union of India & Ors.