Anticipatory bail is a wide judicial discretion not limited only to exceptional cases. Courts cannot impose rigid non-statutory constraints like limited time duration or mandatory surrender. Such bail should ordinarily continue until the trial concludes, maintaining a necessary balance between individual liberty and the interests of the state.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 438, 437, 439 - Anticipatory bail - Scope and ambit - Power of court - Personal liberty vs. societal interest - Constitution of India - Article 21 - Mandatory or arbitrary limitations on anticipatory bail, such as restricted duration or requirements to surrender, are contrary to legislative intent and constitutional principles. (Paras 8-10, 15, 17, 98, 102, 108, 112)

(B) Precedents - Judicial discipline - Larger bench decisions - Decisions by a larger bench are binding on co-equal or smaller benches - Subsequent rulings by smaller benches inconsistent with established law of a larger bench are per incuriam. (Paras 28, 32, 133, 149)

(C) Discretion - Judicial discretion in bail applications - Flexibility in approach - No rigid, inflexible, or straitjacket formula for grant or refusal of bail - Discretion is to be exercised with caution based on individual facts and circumstances. (Paras 26, 121, 137)

Facts of the case:
An accused person, apprehending arrest in a non-bailable criminal offense related to professional or personal conflict, moved the courts for anticipatory bail. The lower court refused the application. The appellant thereafter challenged the refusal before the apex court, contending that personal liberty constitutes a fundamental right and that the investigating agency did not possess sufficient justification for custodial interrogation, given that the accused had actively joined and cooperated with the investigation.

Findings of Court:
The court held that personal liberty is a fundamental right protected by the constitutional framework and cannot be curtailed without just cause. It determined that the provision for anticipatory bail serves to shield individuals from humiliation and the abuse of power. The court concluded that earlier rulings by smaller benches, which imposed constraints such as limited duration or mandatory surrender, were contrary to the law established by the Constitution Bench and must yield to that authoritative mandate.

Issues: Whether the judicial discretion for granting anticipatory bail is subject to inherent restrictions like limited time duration and whether such bail requires the accused to surrender or follow specific, non-statutory procedural hurdles not envisioned by the enabling provision.

Ratio Decidendi: The power to grant anticipatory bail is wide and discretionary, intended to preserve human dignity and individual freedom. Introducing rigid conditions not found in the statute, such as limiting the duration of bail or compelling the accused to seek regular bail after a fixed period, is inconsistent with the legislature's intent and violates constitutional protections. The balancing of individual liberty against public interest must be done case-by-case, rather than through inflexible judicial limitations.

Result: Appeal allowed; orders denying anticipatory bail set aside; directions issued for release on bail with specific compliance conditions.

J U D G M E N T

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal involves issues of great public importance pertaining to the importance of individual’s personal liberty and the society’s interest.

3. The society has a vital interest in grant or refusal of bail because every criminal offence is the offence against the State. The order granting or refusing bail must reflect perfect balance between the conflicting interests, namely, sanctity of individual liberty and the interest of the society. The law of bails dovetails two conflicting interests namely, on the one hand, the requirements of shielding the society from the hazards of those committing crimes and potentiality of repeating the same crime while on bail and on the other hand absolute adherence of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence of an accused until he is found guilty and the sanctity of individual liberty.

4. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

The appellant, who belongs to the Indian National Congress party (for short ‘Congress party’) is the alleged accused in this case. The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’), is that Sidramappa Patil was contesting election of the State assembly on behalf of the Bhartiya Janata Party (for short ‘BJP’). In the FIR, it is incorporated that Baburao Patil, Prakash Patil, Mahadev Patil, Mallikarjun Patil, Apparao Patil, Yeshwant Patil were supporters of the Congress and so also the supporters of the appellant Siddharam Mhetre and opposed to the BJP candidate.

5. On 26.9.2009, around 6.00 p.m. in the evening, Sidramappa Patil of BJP came to the village to meet his party workers. At that juncture, Shrimant Ishwarappa Kore, Bhimashankar Ishwarappa Kore, Kallapa Gaddi, Sangappa Gaddi, Gafur Patil, Layappa Gaddi, Mahadev Kore, Suresh Gaddi, Suresh Zhalaki, Ankalgi, Sarpanch of village Shivmurti Vijapure met Sidramappa Patil and thereafter went to worship and pray at Layavva Devi’s temple. After worshipping the Goddess when they came out to the assembly hall of the temple, these aforementioned political opponents namely, Baburao Patil, Prakash Patil, Gurunath Patil, Shrishail Patil, Mahadev Patil, Mallikarjun Patil, Annarao @ Pintu Patil, Hanumant Patil, Tammarao Bassappa Patil, Apparao Patil, Mallaya Swami, Sidhappa Patil, Shankar Mhetre, Usman Sheikh, Jagdev Patil, Omsiddha Pujari, Panchappa Patil, Mahesh Hattargi, Siddhappa Birajdar, Santosh Arwat, Sangayya Swami, Anandappa Birajdar, Sharanappa Birajdar, Shailesh Chougule, Ravi Patil, Amrutling Koshti, Ramesh Patil and Chandrakant Hattargi suddenly came rushing in their direction and loudly shouted, “why have you come to our village? Have you come here to oppose our Mhetre Saheb? They asked them to go away and shouted Mhetre Saheb Ki Jai.”

6. Baburao Patil and Prakash Patil from the aforementioned group fired from their pistols in order to kill Sidramappa Patil and the other workers of the BJP. Bhima Shankar Kore was hit by the bullet on his head and died on the spot. Sangappa Gaddi, Shivmurti Vjapure, Jagdev Patil, Layappa Patil, Tammaro Patil were also assaulted. It is further mentioned in the FIR that about eight days ago, the appellant Siddharam Mhetre and his brother Shankar Mhetre had gone to the village and talked to the abovementioned party workers and told them that, “if anybody says anything to you, then you tell me. I will send my men within five minutes. You beat anybody. Do whatever.”

7. According to the prosecution, the appellant along with his brother instigated their party workers which led to killing of Bhima Shanker Kora. It may be relevant to mention that the alleged incident took place after eight days of the alleged incident of instigation.

8. The law relating to bail is contained in sections 436 to 450 of chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 436 deals with situation, in what kind of cases bail should be

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2271 2010. (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009) Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre …..Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra and Others …..Respondents Dalveer Bhandari, J.

Cases Referred (4)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2271 2010.

(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7615 of 2009)

Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre …..Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra and Others …..Respondents

Dalveer Bhandari, J.