Sushila Aggarwal v. State 2020 (Case Summary)

This case clarifies that anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC does not automatically expire when an accused appears before the court or when a charge sheet is filed. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that such bail continues until the trial concludes, unless expressly cancelled by a judicial order.

Table of Contents

Facts of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

Sushila Aggarwal applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case registered by Delhi Police.
Multiple anticipatory bail applications were filed, some granted and later withdrawn; this led to confusion on whether bail expired.
The Delhi High Court issued varied orders on expiry of bail, including automatic termination on charge sheet filing or arrest.
Sushila Aggarwal approached the Supreme Court to settle whether anticipatory bail terminates on filing of charge sheet or upon arrest.

Issues framed

Whether anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC automatically ends on filing of charge sheet or arrest?
Whether a court can put a time‑limit or condition to terminate anticipatory bail without justified reason?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The Delhi High Court had issued orders limiting the duration of anticipatory bail, including a requirement to surrender after charge sheet filing.

Judgment of Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Supreme Court held that anticipatory bail is a statutory safeguard against arrest under Section 438 CrPC and cannot be treated as temporary or provisional. The Court ruled that bail cannot automatically lapse merely because the accused appears before the court or a charge sheet is filed—unless the court expressly imposes a condition.

The Court directed that Anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to expire merely on the occurrence of a charge‑sheet being filed or an arrest being made after the expiry of pre‑arrest bail, unless such a condition is severely imposed by the trial court or a higher court.

Further, the Court clarified that anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC must continue through the trial phase, unless an express order by the court cancels or conditions it. Finally, the Court underscored that personal liberty is best protected when anticipatory bail is treated equal to regular bail unless court finds compelling reasons to impose limits, ensuring equitable treatment across jurisdictions.