LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Human (MRA)     27 December 2011

Is it necessary to have regular bail (498a)?

Dear Experts,

I have got an AB order which says, "The ad-interim anticipatory bail granted earlier is confirmed".

Now, the Chargesheet has been filed by the police.

Do I need to apply for the regular bail?

As such there is NO Time limit mentioned on the AB order while the Interim Bail granted earlier was valid till the date of hearing of AB.

Please advise.

If there is no MANDATORY need to apply for the regular bail, isn't the "AB confirmed" valid till the decision of the case?


 8 Replies

cm jain sir (ccc)     27 December 2011

pls reply expert. wy its required when AB is alredy there where time limit is not specified..


after filing of chargesheet against you in the court, u will have to get regular bail.

2 Like

Nadeem Qureshi (Advocate/ nadeemqureshi1@gmail.com)     28 December 2011

Dear Human

I think you have been got your answer yesterday.

find the attachment

Attached File : 353174454 10733 264683 mehtre anticipatory bail sc.pdf downloaded: 582 times
1 Like

Niraj Mishra (Advocate & Partner Delhi based Law Firm)     28 December 2011


after completion of investigation police will file charghseet before the concerned/ ilaka magistrate and after taking cognizance , magistrate will issue summon against u for appearnce befeore the court and will fix a date for ur appearance. On that day again you have to seek regular bail . Court grants it easily so nothing to worru about it. thanks

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     30 December 2011

Dear Author,


Hypothetically, the answer by @Nadeem is very apt and self-explanatory.


In short, the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order interated the law and opined that Anticipatory Bail is superior than Regular Bail and once it is granted there is no need for regular bail. AB is valid till the completion of trial.


However, practically, the situation is completely opposite. Sessions Judges are so high headed, that they insist on regular bail and if you try to act smart and show such judgments then they would reject your regular bail and send you behind bars. By the time you will get relief from High Court or even for that matter directly by Supreme Court, the accused would have spent 2-3 days behind bars. For an innocent accused, 2-3days behind bars is enough to kill his trust in our constitution and law. And for the complainant this is a satisfactory revenge.


One should never trust the process of law in India and never should rely on the humans involved in such process starting from Advocate, Courts, Court Staff, Police and to an extent even the trial court judge. All are working for their livelyhood and no one would want their livelyhood to be killed by reduced number of court cases. So everyone is working to keep the cases alive and pending and allow to create more cases. I've seen all this live and I don't feel any regret to say it on an open forum.




1 Like

venkatesh Rao (Retired Government Servant)     09 January 2012

Dear Saurabh,

i must say you have concern over the plight of the day. You are still a student and should not expose yourself so extremely. It is a public platform and I am afraid some of your comments may amount to contempt. We are bound by law and procedures of the country.Kindly think the whole situation in an open and practical perspective.  If you cite the case quoted by Qureshi, no court or judge in India would dare to reject the application as it is a binding precedent. 

Your tempo of letter sends bad signal to the society. If what you say is fact, you have got remedy under proper forum. All should trust the process of law. Relief from court always depend on facts, circumstances and perhaps, how you convince the court. 

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     09 January 2012

@Venkatesh Rao


My words are not vague or calculative but based on practical and real experience which I saw while I was in court attending a regular bail hearing. The facts of the case is that the accused was allowed anticipatory bail and then was ordered to apply for regular bail. When the accused applied for regular bail, firstly the sessions judge simply denied to accept the application as the accused was not in custody but as per S.439CrPC, the accused should be in custody.


Then after the advocate was able to convince the sessions judge to admit the application and dispose off on merits, the judge started to go against the accused and the situation within 2 hearings was that the sessions judge was about to reject the regular bail.


Now my question is, that suppose this case was under S.302IPC, and the accused was granted AB by High Court and there is no change of situation when the accused applied for Regular Bail, how can the sessions judge simply decide to reject the regular bail? Even when the defence counsil submitted 4-5 different High Court and Supreme Court judgments to support his contentions, the sessions judge simply overlooked all of them, and even once remarked verbally, "decide to mujhe hi karna hai abhi, ye judgement se kya hoga?".


Without telling anything else about this incidence, I would just say that it happened in a District Court of Delhi. Now if you feel that after such incidence my anguish is not justified, I'm ready to apologise in written on this forum. But, unfortunately for our Indian Judicial System, this is a true incidence which filled me with incidence. And finally, when this sessions judge was transferred (fortunately within 20 days due to routine transfer) another sessions judge immediately granted the regular bail in one single hearing. Still the accused was made to suffer by the Judge's Clerk who demanded Rs.200/- while accepting bail bond and taking thumb impression of the accused.


The situation in our system is so bad that is why we have so many cases pending and no chance of survival of innocents. That is why no guilty is afraid of committing repeated offences while the innocent man fears of even making a genuine complaint!!




vikas (manager)     02 April 2012

Saurabh is absolutely right even I suffered the same and my interim bail was rejected though in my case wife's father submitted false 156(3) showing 11 months old fabricated incident and that the police is not registering the case and filed complaint in one of the UP court and provided two to three close relative as witness and the judge even not seeked police report but went on sending summons to entire family wherein we took the high court order after filing 482 that the court should listen our bail as per lal kamlendra vs state of UP and amravati case but the judge didn't grant interim bail even and sent me in custody and then next day even rejected the regular bail and in the rejection letter they showed that the crime is sangeen and thereby rejecting the bail.

I also agree that lower court do not go for merit as they think they are don and king (it applies to bad judges and there are good judges also) basically entire system is corrupt wherin either the judge bow to any pressure of higher up relative of complainent or bribary money through their touts/dalals or their own mindset neglecting the law course.

And moreover there is nothing to complain against those judges and all are helpless they can do anything of their taste. But we have good judges also. but again bad and good is govern by oneself in judiciary and judiciary is the highest forum in India which is more corrupted like clerks take openly the payments for marking dates etc and whatever record you seek you have to pay money other than fees. first to bring everything in place in India judiciary should be corrected and that too at lower courts.

What contempt saurabh is doing by highlighting the real facts and I know all such things are happening because no one dare to raise voice against corrupt judiciary system which do  not work in system but by own systems where rich can get justice and poor are victimised.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register