Views expressed by Larger Benches of Supreme Court has to be followed.

R. Balasubramanian, J.

The following are the facts, which preceded the reference made by the Honble Chief Justice to the Full Bench. Two persons by name Sudhakaran and Palanikumar filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2383/2007 under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court for anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.170/2007 on the file of Sivagangai Police Station. A learned Judge of this court sitting in Madurai Bench granted an order of anticipatory bail for a limited period. However the Bar at Madurai appears to have addressed arguments at length before the learned Single Judge that the court should grant the protection under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if it decides to grant, without limiting the period. Learned Judge, after hearing extensive arguments, came to the conclusion considering the case laws cited by the Bar and the case laws taken note of by the learned Judge himself, that there is an apparent conflict in the judgments of the Supreme Court on the coveted issue namely, whether the court has the power to grant anticipatory bail limiting it to a specified period or not? Therefore by order dated 26.03.2007, learned Single Judge directed the Registry to place the entire papers before the Honble Chief Justice for deciding the issue by a Division Bench to be constituted by the Honble Chief Justice. Thus, the matter came to be placed before a Division Bench consisting of two Honble Judges sitting in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, who, by their order dated 25.04.2007 and after adverting to the case laws cited at the Bar, both for and against, disposed of that reference as hereunder:

"In view of the divergent views taken by the Supreme Court, the issue could be solved only by getting a clarification from the Apex Court. This reference is accordingly answered."

Thereafter, the Madurai Bench of the Madras Bar Association and the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court Advocates Association, in short called as "MMBA" and "MBHAA" moved review petitions namely, M.P. (MD) Nos.1 and 2 of 2007 to review the order dated 25.04.2007. The very same Bench heard those review applications and by order dated 25.06.2007, disposed of the review petitions by recalling the earlier order dated 25.04.2007 and holding that the issue has got to be referred to a larger Bench. Thus, the Division Bench, which heard the review petitions, directed the Registry to place the entire matter once again before the Honble Chief Justice. On the note put up by the Registry after that, the Honble Chief Justice, by administrative order dated 29.06.2007,

directed the "lis" to be placed before the Full Bench and that is how the issue is before us.

2. Learned counsels normally practising in the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, who were here practising as lawyers previously before the creation of the Madurai Bench, appeared in this case, besides Mr.R.Shanmugasundaram learned senior counsel and other learned counsels in support of the argument that in granting anticipatory bail, the court should not limit its tenure. Since the issue referred to the Bench has a larger impact on the day-to-day dispensation of justice by the higher courts namely, Court of Sessions and High Court in this State, we requested Mr.B.Sriramulu learned senior counsel to assist this court as Amicus Curiae and he gladly accepting it, assisted us. Mr.Raja Elango learned State Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.N.R.Elango learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State also participated in the proceedings. From their arguments, we could find that all of them are united without any difference of opinion – which is a rare happening in the legal profession, in their submission that anticipatory bail, if granted, should be granted for an unlimited period and it shall not be restricted to any particular tenure. All of them, to sustain that submission, heavily relied upon the judgment of the Cons