SANTU MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Advocate-General for the State.

(2.) BY this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 26.8.1997 passed by the learned Magistrate and also order dated 11.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani, whereby and whereunder the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani.

(3.) IT appears from Annexure-1 that while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner this Court had not fixed any time limit and, therefore, the learned Courts below could not have treated the order passed by this Court as conditional one. It is true the when a time limit is prescribed either by the Sessions Judge or by this Court in exercise of power under Section 438, Cr.P.C. then the accused person has to surrender in the Court below after submission of the charge-sheet and he has to make a prayer for regular bail but in absence of time limit fixed by the Sessions Judge or by this Court while granting anticipatory bail, the order granting bail should be treated as open order of bail to the petitioner during the trial. This question has already been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1632.