Supreme Court: Order Granting Anticipatory Bail Only Till Framing Of Charge; There Should Be A Reasons For Such Restriction

The Supreme Court in the case Tarun Aggarwal vs Union of India observed that if a court restricts the anticipatory bail up to framing of charge, the stated order should discuss the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter which warranted such restriction.
In the present case, it has been restricted by the Allahabad High Court that the anticipatory bail granted to the accused only till framing of the charge.
It was observed that in response to the Special Leave Petition filed by the accused, the ASG KM Nataraj justifying the order by relying on a decision in the case Nathu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh. The court in the said decision upheld that though normally, the anticipatory bail should not be granted for a specific period, the court cannot limit the tenure of the anticipatory bail, if the facts and circumstances are so made out. The time has been requested by the ASG for filing counter affidavit so as to substantiate the reasons for limiting the period of anticipatory bail.
The Court observed that this court is not inclined to grant time to file reply in as much as the counter affidavit cannot supplement the reasons given in the impugned order. In its impugned order, the mind of judges would be reflected as to what were the peculiar facts and circumstances which warranted limiting the anticipatory bail for a particular period. Thus, the perusal of the entire order would reveal that there is no discussion at all with regard to the same. Therefore, the court quashed the part of the impugned order restricting the anticipatory bail up to framing of charge.