LexSALAUDDIN ABDULSAMAD SHAIKH versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SALAUDDIN ABDULSAMAD SHAIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA DECEMBER 11, 1995 B [A.M. AHMADI, CJ, S.C. SEN AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.J Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : S. 438-Anticipatory bail-Grant of-Ordinarily the regular Coun which C is to deal with that panicular offence cannot be by- passed-Coun granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Coun and the duration of the bail order should also be limited. The petitioner filed an application in the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedur., and secured an ad-interim an- D ticipatory bail order which was to enure upto 26.9.1995. The High Court imposed certain conditions, one of which was that he will report at the Police Station every day till 25.9.1995. When the matter came up on that day for final disposal before the same judge, he directed the petitioner to move a regular bail application before the Court which was in seisin of the E criminal case pending against him and observed that the bail application should be disposed of nninflnenced by the observations made in the earlier order of 13.9.1995. Against this order passed by the Single Jndge the present SLP has been filed. Disposing of the appeal, this Court F HELD : 1. Anticipatory bail is granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, bnt that does not mean that the regular conrt, which is to try the offender, is songht to be by- passed and that is the reason why the High Conrt very rightly fixed the outer date for the continuance of the bail and on tl1e date of its expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular G court for bail. That is the correct procedure to follow because when the Court of Session or the High Court is granting anticipatory bail, it is granted at a stage when the investigation is complete and, therefore, it is not informed abont the nature of evidence against the alleged offende~-. It is, therefore, necessary that snch anticipatory bail orders shonld :.e of a H limited duration only and ordinarily on the expiry of that d:tration or •. 556 S.A. SHAIKH v. ST A TE 557 extended duration the Court granting anticipatory bail should leave it to A the regular Court to deal with the matter on an appreciation of evidence placed before it after the investigation has made progress or the char- gesheet is submitted. (558-B-D] 2. An order of anticipatory bail could even be obtained in cases of serious nature such as murder and, therefore, it is essential that the duration of that o_rder should be limited and ordinarily the Court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court which B 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 ilail. In the instant case, therefore, the High C Court had followed the currect procedure and there is no reason to interfere. (558-E-F] CRIMINAL AfPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Peti- tion (CRL) No. 3628 of 1995. From the fodgment and Order dated 26.9.95 of the Bombay High Court in Crl. A No. 2230 of 1995. AS. Bhasme for the Petitioner. V.N. Ganpule and Shivaji M. Jadhav for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : D E The petitioner filed an application in the High Court being Criminal Application No. 2230/95 under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Pro- cedure and secured an ad-interim anticipatory bail order which was to F enure upto 26.9.1995. The High Court imposed certain conditions, one of which was that he will report at the Police Station every day till 25.9.1995. The petitioner says that he has complied with each and every condition imposed under that order. Be that as it may, it was an ad-interim order which was to enure upto 26.9.1995. When the matter came up on that day for final disposal before the same learned Judge, he directed the petitioner G to move a regular bail ap_plication before the Court which was in seisin of the criminal case pending against him and observed that the bail applica; tion should be disposed of uninfluenced by the observations made in the earlier order of U.9.1995. It is against this order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court that this SLP is filed. We see no reason to H 558 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A entertain this petition. Under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Proce- dure w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.