Parties and roles: Sushila Aggarwal is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. State (NCT of Delhi) is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Courts frequently granted anticipatory bail only until filing of the charge sheet, summons or a short date, compelling an accused to seek regular bail even without misconduct. Other decisions allowed protection to continue through trial. The reference sought a uniform rule balancing personal liberty and investigation. Procedural and real-world context: Conflicting Supreme Court decisions differed on whether anticipatory bail should end at a fixed stage. | 2018: Questions referred to Constitution Bench. In simple terms, the Court had to resolve must anticipatory bail invariably be limited in time? Does it end when the accused is summoned or the charge sheet is filed? What conditions can protect investigation and victims? The outcome mattered immediately because anticipatory bail ordinarily should not be restricted to a fixed period and may continue until the end of trial, depending on facts. It does not automatically expire on filing of the charge sheet or summons. Procedural setting: Conflicting Supreme Court decisions differed on whether anticipatory bail should end at a fixed stage. | 2018: Questions referred to Constitution Bench. | 29 Jan 2020: Bench held protection ordinarily need not be time-limited. The central problem before the Court was must anticipatory bail invariably be limited in time? Does it end when the accused is summoned or the charge sheet is filed? What conditions can protect investigation and victims? The controversy was considered in the framework of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.438, 437 and 439, together with Constitution arts.14 and 21. The wider importance of the case lies in personal liberty; presumption of innocence; judicial discretion; tailored bail conditions; cancellation for misuse.

Accused: Section 438 contains no automatic time limit; arbitrary expiry undermines liberty and presumption of innocence. | Prosecution: open-ended protection may obstruct investigation, custodial interrogation and trial; courts should impose limits. Competing positions in context: Sushila Aggarwal's position: as the appellant/applicant, Sushila Aggarwal sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Personal liberty; presumption of innocence; judicial discretion; tailored bail conditions; cancellation for misuse. State (NCT of Delhi)'s position: as respondent, State (NCT of Delhi) resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.438, 437 and 439 and Constitution arts.14 and 21, the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

Anticipatory bail ordinarily should not be restricted to a fixed period and may continue until the end of trial, depending on facts. It does not automatically expire on filing of the charge sheet or summons. Courts may impose tailored conditions, limit duration for special reasons, and prosecution may seek cancellation for abuse, non-cooperation or changed circumstances. No blanket rule either of limitation or permanence applies. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Personal liberty; presumption of innocence; judicial discretion; tailored bail conditions; cancellation for misuse and binds the parties to the operative directions made in SLP(Crl.) Nos. 7281-7282/2017 and connected matters. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.438, 437 and 439. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ss.438, 437 and 439

Constitution arts.14 and 21

Personal liberty; presumption of innocence; judicial discretion; tailored bail conditions; cancellation for misuse