The Allahabad High Court, on September 30, held that a bail applicant was liable to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in case of added Section if he was granted regular bail for the same cause of action in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of "Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1".

Bench of Justice Krishan Pahal allowed an anticipatory bail plea preferred by an accused who was earlier granted regular bail and later on Sections were added to the FIR.

The FIR was registered under Sections 379, 427 IPC, Sections 15, 16 of The Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Users in Land) Act, Section 3/4 of the Exclusive Substances Act and 3/4 of The Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act. Sections 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act were added to the FIR.

The Court observed that, "The expression 'bail' whether it is a regular bail or an anticipatory bail from Sections 437 to 439 of the Code states that a person accused of, or suspected of, the commissioning of offences of the type referred therein may be 'released on bail'."

"The only difference between Sections 437, 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. is that an order of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. insulates a person arrested from custody, while an order of bail under Section 437 or 439 Cr.P.C. gets him released from custody. Under all the three provisions, Sections 437 to 439 Cr.P.C., the person is set at liberty on security being taken for his appearance on a bail and a place," the Court noted.

The applicant was, henceforth, enlarged on anticipatory bail.