LAW OF CRIMES

CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

INTERNAL I
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Citation: (2011) 1 SCC 694

FACTS

 The accused Siddhram Mehtre was a member of the Indian National Congress. He
was contesting elections against Sidramappa Patil who was part of the Bharitiya Janta
Party. Baburao Patil and 5 other members were the supporters of Congress.
 On 26.09.2009, Sidramappa Patil visited the village and offered prayers to a temple.
His opponents confronted and revolted against him entering the village
 Baburao Patil and Prakash Patil fired gunshot with an intention to kill Sidramappa and
other BJP workers. During the firing, Bhima Shankar Kore, a BJP supporter was short
dead.
 In the FIR, the BJP party accused Siddhram Mhetre for instigating the violence and
murder. They relied on his conversation with his fellow congress party members,
which took place 8 days ago, where he said that “if anybody says anything to you,
then you tell me. I will send my men within five minutes. You beat anybody. Do
whatever.”.
 Thus, to avoid arrest, Mhetre filled an application of anticipatory bail under section
438 of CRPC before the High Court. The high court declined the request, and
contesting the same he filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court

ISSUE

 The eligibility of the petitioner to get anticipatory bail and get covered under section
438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
 Whether the scope and limitation of the said section put forth by the High Court is
right and to be followed?

RULES APPLIED

Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 – Anticipatory Bail - Direction for grant
of bail to person apprehending arrest for non-bailable offences.
CASES REFERRED

 Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
 Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (1996) 1 SCC 667
 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Anr. (1978) 1 SCC 248
 A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras: AIR 1950 SC 27
 Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1994) 4 SCC 260
 Sushila Aggarwal and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. (2020) 5 SCC 1

CONTENTIONS

Appellant

The appellant contended that, he is cooperating with the investigating officers and hence does
not have the intention to abscond. Thus, he shall be granted anticipatory bail, relying on the
guidelines and decision given by the Apex court in the case Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors v
State of Punjab1.

Respondents

The counsel for the respondents has put forth the argument that, anticipatory bail should be
granted only for exceptional or rarest cases and for minor offences. Offences which carry a
punishment of life imprisonment etc anticipatory bail should not be granted. The counsel did
contest the decisions of the High Court, as it went against the judgment of a constitution
bench of the High court which will be per incuriam and not good in law.

JUDGMENT

The Apex court allowed the appeal and the decision of the High Court rejecting the
anticipatory bail was set aside. The court heavily relied on the judgment Gurbaksh Sing
Sibbia v State of Punjab and thus focused on the interpretation of the section and object and
reason behind it. The court ordered the petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 and
two sureties of a similar amount to satisfaction of the arresting officer.
1
(1980) 2 SCC 565
ANALYSIS

In the present case the High Court had denied the plea for an anticipatory bail. The Apex
court focused on the following factors which was overlooked by the High Court.

The Apex court emphasised on protecting the personal liberty of a person while protecting
the society. A criminal offence is a threat to the society as a whole but a balance has to be
present between the conflicting interest of individual liberty and interest of the society. The
court also focused on the object of the legislature behind introducing the section, which states
that, it was imperative to introduce a device which protects the accused from arrest in case of
false cases charged to affect the reputation of the accused which is quite prominent among
influential people and political parties. The court also relied on the theories of philosophers
such as Aristotle, John Stuard Mill etc to establish a fundamental relationship between human
dignity and individual liberty which is indispensable even while protecting the interest of the
society. The freedom of movement and locomotion is also party of personal liberty as
established in the case of A K Gopalan v The State of Madras 2. The jurisprudence regarding
liberty in countries like Canada, USA was also looked into in order to widen the scope of the
term liberty. By relying on the above said sources, the court was able to expand the scope of
the Articles protecting individual liberty, where life did not just include mere living but with
human dignity and various other aspects. This helps in preventing the executives to encroach
on the said rights due to a narrow construction of the article cause human rights violation.

From the Gurbaksh Singh case the court also focused on the instances where the lack of
proper application of section 438, a large number of undertrials are still suffering in jail for an
allegation of committing a minor offence. This also leads to abuse of power by the Police by
conducting unjustified and unnecessary arrests, the same was emphasised and relied by the
court from the judgment of the case Joginder Kumar. The chances of abuse of the power by
the courts while invoking the said section is very meek as during the final hearing the
presence of the prosecution is compulsory so that he can put forward his point of views,
which helps to a reach a final decision.

In the Gurbaksh Singh case, the constitution bench had clearly comprehended the legislative
intent behind giving the High court and Sessions court the discretion to grant bail. The
wording of the section is very broad so as to not limit the construction and obstruct the

2
AIR 1950 SC 27
application of the provisions by the court as their decision heavily focus and varies depending
on the circumstances and facts of the case.

After the above-mentioned landmark judgment by the apex court, contrary judgments
delivered in cases such as Salaudin Abdulsamad Shaik v State of Maharashtra 3 where the
erroneous interpretation followed was that the section should only be applied to exceptional
cases. The court through the present judgment has again further emphasised and established
that the courts has to exercise care and prudence and hence, the power should not limit to
cases which are exceptional or rarest of the rare, as it destroys the statutory intent. The “if it
thinks fit” mentioned in the section shows that the decision is solely based on the discretion
of the courts.

Another erroneous interpretation which was introduced and later followed in many cases like
the Salaudin case was that the bail should be granted only for a limited period of time. The
legislature has not set any limitation period for the anticipatory bail. The same was upheld in
the Maneka Gandhi4 case. The present case drew inference from the Gurbaksh Singh ,
Maneka Gandhi case and the legislative intent and stressed on the point that the grant of bail
subsist during the entire trail and the court can impose condition or restrictions during the
furtherance of investigation which is covered under section 438 clause 2. This decision by the
court will thus help prevent further wrong interpretation of the statue which can cause
unnecessary complications to the accused.

Per incuriam means that the courts through lack of care, deviated from a decision of a
constitutional bench of the apex court and decided judgments which are contrary to the said
conditions and guidelines. The reliance of the such cases defeats the discipline and rules
which the courts are expected to follow and concluded that the decision of a larger bench is
binding on a smaller bench. By upholding this rule, the court was able to negate the cases
which were deviating from the Gurbaksh Singh judgment, thus preventing confusion due to
conflicting judgments.

The court has laid down few parameters that are imperative while considering the grant of
anticipatory bail and they are as follows:

 The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be
properly comprehended before the arrest

3
(1996) 1 SCC 667
4
(1978) 1 SCC 248
  Whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment in respect of any
cognizable offence
 The possibility that the applicant will flee during the process of investigation and
court proceedings.
 The possibility that the accused is likely to repeat a similar or any other offence
 The object of the accusations and whether the intention was only to humiliate or
injure the applicant
 The impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude
affecting a very large number of people
 Evaluation of available material against the accused is necessary and corroborating it
with the allegations. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common
knowledge and concern.
 There should be a balance between free, fair and full investigation and prevention of
harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused.
 Reasonable apprehension of tampering of witness and the evidences and the threat to
the complainant
 If the case of the prosecution is frivolous and a doubt exist regarding the genuine
intention of the other party, the accused is entitled to be granted bail.

The court has also suggested few methods which are illustrative and not exhaustive to ensure
that the accused does not flee from the proceedings.

 Direct the accused to join investigation. The non-cooperation of the accused could
lead to him getting arrested
 Seizure of the passport, related documents such as title deeds of properties or FD’s etc
 Through execution of bonds and/or furnish sureties of number of persons which
according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case.
 An undertaking by the accused stating that he would not attempt to interact or visit the
witnesses, so as to avoid the tampering of evidences
 Freezing the bank account during the duration of the investigation.

By following the above-mentioned methods or anything else serving similar purpose, the
personal liberty of the accused could be upheld and the court and investigating authority will
have the assurance that the accused will not evade the procedure of justice. Thus, balancing
both, enforcement and protection of personal liberty and protection of the society.

SUGGESTIONS

The discretionary power held by the courts is very imperative to the whole section and thus
High Courts through its judicial academies should periodically organize workshops, seminars
etc to sensitize experts, judicial officers, police officers. This will help them comprehend the
importance of personal liberty and social interest, thus finding a perfect balance between
both. The performance of the judicial officers also needs to be scrutinized and in case of any
wrong interpretation of judgment, the same must be pointed and directed to take corrective
measures in the future. This will prevent illogically precedents and uphold the pure intention
behind the section.

The only deviation which can be found in the present case from the Gurbaksh Singh case is
regarding the limitation period of the bail. In the present case the court has failed to emphasis
the discretion of the courts regarding the time period and states that the bail is applicable
through out the investigation and trial. The courts can put a limit to the period if it wants to
depending on the circumstances of the case, on the expiry of which the accused will have to
apply for regular bail under section 437 or 439. This was rightly pointed in the Sushila
Aggarwal and Ors v NCT of Delhi 5 and this part of the judgment was subsequently overruled
and reversed by the said case.

CONCLUSION

From the present case we were able to deduce that, the courts should never interpret a statute
making it inflexible. Such an interpretation affects the application of provisions which defeats
the purpose. By liberal interpretation the courts were able to widen the reach of the section
thus protecting the individual liberty. Such judgments help students to get a clear
understanding of the importance and extent of personal liberty protected by the constitution.
it also upheld the principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is innocent until proven
guilt. Therefore, anticipatory bail is a device that secures the personal liberty and does not act
as a shield for the accused, the same has been emphasized in the judgment.

5
(2020) 5 SCC 1
The parameters and guidelines put forth by the judgment acts a good precedent thus helping
courts to analyse the case better. The suggestion of the court to spread awareness regarding
the same ensures that no further deviation from the intention of the legislature occur and the
broad interpretation of the section is applied with care and caution.

Hence this judgment was able to reiterate and emphasis the decision of the landmark
judgment and prevent from further unnecessary deviation by the court by laying down the
principle of binding of the court judgments based on the quorum.