An ad-interim anticipatory bail order requires confirmation after hearing the parties and may be in varied terms, but if not confirmed, it does not become a final anticipatory bail order.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Smt. Sushila Devi filed an application for anticipatory bail in FIR No. 72 of 2018, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Ranipokhri, District Dehradun. The application was filed on 12th October, 2018. The matter was listed on various occasions. On 15th November, 2018, the Court ordered that notice be issued to the respondent no.3 returnable within a period of three weeks and thereafter passed the following orders:

"Considering the submission of learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers available on record, it is directed that the applicant shall join the investigation and shall fully cooperate with the investigating agency. In the event of arrest with regard to the aforesaid FIR, applicant shall be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer."

2. The matter was again listed because notices were issued to the respondent no.3. Now, the State has filed objections. The objection relates to the maintainability of the anticipatory bail application, a thing which is a history now, because the provision is contained in the statute book. State also informed that charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

3. The only point, which remains for consideration is, as to whether, the order dated 15th November, 2018, as quoted hereinabove is an ad-interim anticipatory bail order or is it anticipatory bail order? It is so, because in view of the settled proposition of law as discussed hereinafter, anticipatory bail order shall remain in force till the trial unless the tenure of anticipatory bail is limited by the Court under any special and peculiar feature.

4. On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the order dated 15th November, 2018 passed by the Court, is a final order of anticipatory bail because it is argued that:

(i) The order dated 15th November, 2018 was passed after giving opportunity to the prosecution and it was passed after 34 days of the anticipatory bail application having been filed.

(ii) By virtue of order dated 15th November, 2018, the main relief sought by the applicant has been granted.

(iii) The language of the order dated 15th November, 2018, clearly reflects that it is final order because it gives direction as to what will be done in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the FIR in question.

(iv) As directed, in the case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others vs State Of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 , the order dated 15th November, 2018 has been passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the prosecution.

(v) The order dated 15th November, 2018, also contains the following wordings: -

"It is made clear that if applicant misuses her liberty, does not cooperate with investigating agency, the investigating agency shall be at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail."

5. On the basis of which, it is argued that there is no allegation of misusing of anticipatory bail by the applicant and no application has been filed for cancellation of the anticipatory bail by the Police. Even otherwise, it is argued that the correctness of this order cannot be considered by this Court. In this context, learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT Of Delhi),2020 SCCOnlineSC 98.

" Para 140- This Court, in the light of above discussions in the two judgments, and in the light of answers to the reference, hereby clarifies that the following need to be kept in mind dealing with applications under Section 438, CR.P.C.;.......................................................

.......................................................

(9) it is open to the police or the investigating agency to move the court concerned, which grants anticipatory bail, under Section 439 (2) to arrest the accused, in the violat