TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC limited by Section 437; appeal allowed, bail on Rs50,000 bond and two sureties</h1> <h3>Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Versus State of Maharashtra and Others</h3> SC held that powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are subject to the limitations of section 437. Appeal allowed; the HC order denying anticipatory bail is set ... Whether the powers under section 438 Cr.P.C. are unguided or uncanalised or are subject to all the limitations of section 437 Cr.P.C.? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court declining anticipatory bail to the appellant cannot be sustained and is consequently set aside. Thus direct the appellant to join the investigation and fully cooperate with the investigating agency. In the event of arrest the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. See Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Others v. State of Punjab [1980 (4) TMI 295 - SUPREME COURT]. Issues Involved:1. Balance between individual liberty and societal interest in granting or refusing bail.2. Historical perspective and legislative intent behind Section 438 Cr.P.C. (anticipatory bail).3. Analysis of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail.4. Relevance and importance of personal liberty.5. Whether anticipatory bail should be limited in duration.6. The issue of per incuriam in conflicting judgments.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Balance between Individual Liberty and Societal Interest in Granting or Refusing Bail:The judgment emphasizes the need to balance individual liberty with societal interests when granting or refusing bail. The court notes that every criminal offense is an offense against the State, and the order granting or refusing bail must reflect a perfect balance between the conflicting interests of individual liberty and societal protection. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests: shielding society from the hazards of those committing crimes and the presumption of innocence of an accused until proven guilty.2. Historical Perspective and Legislative Intent Behind Section 438 Cr.P.C. (Anticipatory Bail):The judgment traces the historical background of anticipatory bail, noting that it was introduced in the Code of Criminal Procedure in 1973. The Law Commission of India recommended its inclusion to prevent influential persons from implicating their rivals in false cases. Section 438 aims to protect personal liberty and prevent the disgrace and ignominy of false arrests. The court emphasizes that the legislative intent behind Section 438 was to ensure respect for personal liberty and adhere to the principle that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.3. Analysis of Judicial Discretion in Granting Anticipatory Bail:The court underscores that judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail should be exercised with care and caution. The Constitution Bench in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565 comprehensively dealt with the scope and ambit of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that it should not be limited to exceptional cases. The court reiterates that the discretion granted by the legislature should not be curtailed by judicial interpretation, and anticipatory bail should not be limited in duration unless new material or circumstances justify its cancellation.4. Relevance and Importance of Personal Liberty:The judgment delves into the philosophical and constitutional significance of personal liberty, tracing its origins to ancient Greek civilization and highlighting its importance in modern democratic societies. The court cites various international charters and constitutional provisions from different countries to emphasize that personal liberty is a fundamental human right. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, is highlighted as a declaration of deep faith in human rights.5. Whether Anticipatory Bail Should Be Limited in Duration:The court addresses the issue of whether anticipatory bail should be limited in duration, noting that some judgments have imposed such limitations. However, the court finds that these limitations are contrary to the legislative intent and the Constitution Bench's decision in Sibbia's case. The court asserts that anticipatory bail should not be limited in duration and should continue until the trial unless new material or circumstances justify its cancellation.6. The Issue of Per Incuriam in Conflicting Judgments:The court examines the principle of per incuriam, which means a decision rendered in ignorance of a binding precedent or statutory provision. The court finds that judgments limiting the duration of anticipatory bail are per incuriam as they ignore the Constitution Bench's decision in Sibbia's case. The court reiterates that judgments of larger benches are binding on smaller benches and emphasizes the importance of judicial discipline in following binding precedents.Conclusion:The court sets aside the High Court's order denying anticipatory bail to the appellant, directing the appellant to join the investigation and cooperate with the investigating agency. The appellant is granted anticipatory bail, and the court underscores the importance of respecting personal liberty and adhering to the legislative intent behind Section 438 Cr.P.C. The judgment reaffirms the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case, emphasizing that anticipatory bail should not be limited in duration and should be granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
