Kurian Joseph, J. - (1.) Whether an anticipatory bail should be for a limited period of time is the issue before us on which there are two divergent views.
(2.) The line of judgments that anticipatory bail should not be for a limited period places its reliance on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others v. State of Punjab, 1980 2 SCC 565.
(3.) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and others, 2011 1 SCC 694 is a very detailed judgment by a Bench of two Judges on the scope and object of an anticipatory bail. In Mhetre , this Court took the view that the Constitution Bench has held that anticipatory bail granted by the court should ordinarily continue till the trial of the case. To quote: "94. The proper course of action ought to be that after evaluating the averments and accusation available on the record if the court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail then an interim bail be granted and notice be issued to the Public Prosecutor. After hearing the Public Prosecutor the court may either reject the bail application or confirm the initial order of granting bail. The court would certainly be entitled to impose conditions for the grant of bail. The Public Prosecutor or the complainant would be at liberty to move the same court for cancellation or modifying the conditions of bail any time if liberty granted by the court is misused. The bail granted by the court should ordinarily be continued till the trial of the case. 95. The order granting anticipatory bail for a limited duration and thereafter directing the accused to surrender and apply for a regular bail is contrary to the legislative intention and the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sibbia case." The decision in Mhetre was recently followed in Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth v. State of Gujarat and another, 2016 1 SCC 152.;