1. By preferring the instant petition under section 482 of CrPC, the petitioner is praying for dispensing with the condition imposed vide order dated 4th November 2009 passed in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7147/2009 by this Court wherein following observations have been made :

“In this peculiar circumstances of the case and looking to the stage of investigation, I deem it appropriate to grant bail. Therefore, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail by the arresting authority, in the event of his arrest, in connection with Crime No.302/08, on furnishing a bond of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty thousand only) along with one surety to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer. It is made clear that soon after filing the charge-sheet, the applicant would be required to apply for regular bail before the Court below.”

2. To substantiate his grounds taken in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the decision in the case of Salauddin Abdul Samad Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra [1996 SCC (Cri.) 198], in which the Hon’ble apex Court has been pleased to observe as under :

“It is therefore, necessary that such anticipatory bail orders should be of a limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that duration or extended duration the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the charge-sheet is submitted. It should be realised that an order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature as for example murder and therefore, it is essential that the duration of that order should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which is expected to deal with the offence. It is that Court which has then to consider whether having regard to the material placed before it, the accused person is entitled to bail.”

3. However, in a later decision in the case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2011 SC 312], following view has been adopted :

“108. Section 438, CrPC does not mention anything about the duration to which a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest can be granted. The order granting anticipatory bail is a direction specifically to release the accused on bail in the event of his arrest. Once such a direction of anticipatory bail is executed by the accused and he is released on bail, the concerned Court would be fully justified in imposing conditions including direction of joining investigation.

109. The Court does not use the expression ‘anticipatory bail’ but it provides for issuance of direction for the release on bail by the High Court or the Court of Session in the event of arrest. According to the aforesaid judgment of Salauddin’s case, the accused has to surrender before the trial Court and only thereafter he/she can make prayer for grant of bail by the trial Court. The trial Court would release the accused only after he has surrendered.

110. In pursuance to the order of the Court of Session or the High Court, once the accused is released on bail by the trial Court, then it would be unreasonable to compel the accused to surrender before the trial Court and again apply for regular bail.

115. The apex Court in Salauddin’s case (supra), held that anticipatory bail should be granted only for a limited period and on the expiry of that duration it should be left to the regular Court to deal with the matter is not the correct view. The reasons quoted in the said judgment 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.

116. The said reason would not be right as the restriction is not seen in the enactment and bail orders by the High Court and Sessio