Case analysis

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (02.12.2010 SC)
MANU/SC/1021/2010
Equivalent Citation: AIR2011SC312, 2011(1) CGBCLJ 1,
2011(1)Crimes109(SC), 2011GLH(1)11, (2011)2GLR1614, 2010(6)KarLJ930,
2011(1)KCCR125, 2011(1)MPHT430, (2011)48OCR(SC)1,
2011(1)OLR(SC)405, 2011(1)RCR(Criminal)126, 2010(12)SCALE691,
(2011)1SCC694, (2011)1SCC(Cri)514
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2010 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7615 of 2009)
Decided On: 02.12.2010
Appellants: Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
Vs.
Respondent: State of Maharashtra and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dalveer Bhandari and K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan , JJ.
Subject: Criminal
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Relevant Section:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 34 ; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 149
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Constitution of India - Article 14 , Constitution of India - Article 19 ,
Constitution of India - Article 19(1) , Constitution of India - Article 20(1) ,
Constitution of India - Article 20(2) , Constitution of India - Article 21 ,
Constitution of India - Article 22 , Constitution of India - Article 141 ,
Constitution of India - Article 341 , Constitution of India - Article 342 ; Indian

Penal Code (IPC) - Section 34 , Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 149 ; Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 436 to 450 ; General Clauses Act,
1897 ;Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (CrPC)
Cases Referred:
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0215/1980 :
(1980) 2 SCC 565; Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
MANU/SC/0088/1985 : (1985) 2 SCC 597; Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0280/1996 : (1996) 1 SCC 667; K.L. Verma v.
State and Anr. MANU/SC/1493/1998 : (1998) 9 SCC 348; Adri Dharan Das v.
State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0120/2005 : (2005) 4 SCC 303; Sunita Devi v.
State of Bihar and Anr. MANU/SC/1032/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 608; N. Meera
Rani v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. MANU/SC/0381/1989 : (1989) 4
SCC 418; Vijayalaxmi Cashew Co. and Ors. v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer and
Anr. MANU/SC/1015/1996 : (1996) 1 SCC 468; Union of India and Ors. v. K.
S. Subramanian MANU/SC/0468/1976 : (1976) 3 SCC 677; State of U.P. v.
Ram Chandra Trivedi MANU/SC/0465/1976 : (1976) 4 SCC 52; Palanikumar
and Anr. v. State 2007 (4) CTC 1 ; A.K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras
MANU/SC/0012/1950 : AIR 1950 SC 27; Kharak Singh v. State of U.P. and
Ors. MANU/SC/0085/1962 : AIR 1963 SC 1295; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India and Anr. MANU/SC/0133/1978 : (1978) 1 SCC 248; State of A.P. v.
Challa Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0368/2000 : (2000) 5 SCC
712; Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors. MANU/SC/1597/1994 : (1994) 3
SCC 569; Francis Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi and
Ors. MANU/SC/0517/1981 : (1981) 1 SCC 608; P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan
Patnaik v. Union of India and Anr. MANU/SC/0433/1994 : (1994) 3 SCC 394;
Khedat Mazdoor Chetana Sangath v. State of M.P. and Ors.
MANU/SC/0007/1995 : (1994) 6 SCC 260; Central Inland Water Transport
Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr.
MANU/SC/0439/1986 : (1986) 3 SCC 156; Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi

Administration MANU/SC/0084/1980 : (1980) 3 SCC 526; Bugdaycay v.

Secretary of State for the Home Department (1987) 1 All ER 940 ; Pretty v.
Director of Public Prosecutions (2002) 1 All ER 1 ; R. v. Curr (1972) SCR 889;
M. v. Organisation Belge ILR (1972) 446 ; Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. and
Ors. MANU/SC/0311/1994 : (1994) 4 SCC 260; Naresh Kumar Yadav v.
Ravindra Kumar MANU/SC/8067/2007 : (2008) 1 SCC 632; Young v. Bristol
Aeroplane Co. Ltd. 1944 KB 718 : (1944) 2 All ER 293 ; Huddersfield Police
Authority v. Watson 1947 KB 842 : (1947) 2 All ER 193 ; Government of A.P.
and Anr. v. B. Satyanarayana Rao (dead) by LRs. and Ors.
MANU/SC/0275/2000 : (2000) 4 SCC 262; Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
MANU/SC/0619/1989 : (1989) 2 SCC 754; Thota Sesharathamma and Anr. v.
Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. MANU/SC/0621/1991 : (1991) 4
SCC 312; Mst. Karmi v. Amru MANU/SC/0480/1971 : (1972) 4 SCC 86; Badri
Pershad v. Smt. Kanso Devi; R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and Anr.
MANU/SC/0159/1997 : (1997) 1 SCC 9; Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Mazdoor
Sabha MANU/SC/0369/1979 : (1980) 2 SCC 593; P.H. Kalyani v. Air France
(1964) 2 SCR 104; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik
Sangra and Ors. MANU/SC/0308/2001 : (2001) 4 SCC 448; Central Board of
Dawoodi Bohra Community v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/1069/2004 :
(2005) 2 SCC 673; State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors.
MANU/SC/1918/2006 : (2006) 4 SCC 1; Subhash Chandra and Anr. v. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board and Ors. MANU/SC/1460/2009 : (2009)
15 SCC 458; S. Pushpa v. Sivachanmugavelu MANU/SC/0091/2005 : (2005) 3
SCC 1; Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Seth G.S. Medical College (1990) 3 SCC
139 ; E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0960/2004 : (2005) 1 SCC 394;
Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Ors. MANU/SC/4591/2008 : (2008) 10
SCC 1
History page 19
Facts:in tp 2011

Issue
1. the present appeal - Whether the appellant, in the present case, entitled
to enlarge on anticipatory bail
2. Whether the powers u/s. 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail is
discretionary
3. Whether grant of bail for limited period is contrary to the legislative
intention and law declared by the Constitution Bench of SC in Gurbaksh
Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab
4. Whether the Constitution Bench decision of the SC in Sibbia's case has the
mandatory binding nature
5. Per incurum
6. Personal liberty
7. Extra ordinary and rarest of the are case as per sec 437
8. the question which arises for consideration is whether the powers under s.
438 Cr.P.C. are unguided or uncanalised or are subject to all the limitations
of s. 437 Cr.P.C.?
Held:in same paras of westlaw

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Ors. v. State of Punjab

held that the accused had to surrender before the Trial Court and only thereafter
he/she could make prayer for grant of bail by the Trial Court - However, once
the accused is released on bail by the Trial Court pursuant to the order of the
Court of Sessions or the HC , then it would be unreasonable to compel the
accused to surrender before the Trial Court and again apply for regular bail Applicant who may not have otherwise lost his liberty loses it because he chose
to file application of anticipatory bail on mere apprehension of being arrested on
accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence - Therefore, finding of
the Salauddin's case is contrary to the legislative intention and law which has
been declared by a Constitution Bench of SC in Sibbia's case - Restrictions
imposed by the SC in Salauddin's case, namely, that the accused released on
anticipatory bail must submit himself to custody and only thereafter can apply
for regular bail, is contrary to the basic intention and spirit of s. 438 CrPC and
art. 21 of the Constitution - Directing the accused to surrender to custody after
the limited period amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty Constitution
Bench of the SC in Sibbia's case crystallized the position that the courts should
not impose restrictions
18/03/2016 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 4
on the ambit and scope of s. 438 CrPC which were not envisaged by the
Legislature -

Salauddins case is that anticipatory bail is granted at a stage when an

investigation is incomplete and the court is not informed about the nature of
evidence against the alleged offender, however, said reason would not be right
as the restriction is not seen in CrPC and bail orders by the HC and Sessions
Court are granted u/ss. 437 and 439 also at such stages and they are granted till
the trial - Anticipatory bail is for limited duration and thereafter the accused
should apply to the regular court for bail, that means the life of s. 438 CrPC
would come to an end after that limited duration and such limitation has not
been envisaged by the legislature - Constitution Bench of the SC in Sibbia's
case has comprehensively dealt with almost all aspects of the concept of
anticipatory bail u/s. 438 CrPC and in view of the said judgment, it would not
be proper to limit the life of anticipatory bail - Appeal allowed.
Inflexible and rigid look for circumstance
Arrest and record the reson
Evidence should be corroborated

Decision order of high court set aside bail granted