SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 02-12-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 24 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 201 
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE 
v . 
. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 2271 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 02, 2010 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. PANICKER 
RADHAKRISHNAN, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of - Appellant was 
member of a political party - FIR alleging that appellant and 
his brother instigated their party workers to fire gun shots at 
A 
B 
c 
the workers of opponent political party which resulted in the 
murder of one person - Murder took place eight days after D 
the incident of instigation - Application for anticipatory bail 
by appellant - Rejection of, by the High Court - Sustainability 
of - Held: Order passed by the High Court not sustainable -
Appellant directed to join investigation and in the event of 
arrest, appellant to be released on bail on his furnishing a 
E 
personal bond - Judgment of Constitution Bench of the 
Supreme Court in *Sibbia's case being on the same issue 
regarding ambit, scope and object of the concept of 
anticipatory bail u/s. 438 followed - Judicial discipline - Bail 
- Precedent. 
ss. 438 and 437 - Power u/s 438, if subject to limitations 
uls. 437 - Held: The limitations mentioned in s. 437 cannot 
be read into s. 438 - Plentitude of s. 438 must be given its 
full play - Court can impose conditions for the grant of bail -
F 
Baa 
G 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant of, for limited period -
Held: Order granting anticipatory bail for a limited duration 
and, thereafter, directing the accused to surrender and apply 
201 
H 
202 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A before a regular bail is contrary to the legislative intention and 
the judgment of the Constitution Bench in *Sibbia's case -
When the bail order is confirmed then the benefit of the grant 
of the bail should continue till the end of the trial of that case 
- Directing the accused to surrender to custody after the 
B limited period amounts to deprivation of his personal liberty 
- s. 438 does not mention anything about the duration to which 
a direction for release on bail in the event of arrest can be 
granted - Courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit 
and scope of s. 438 which are not envisaged by the legislature 
c - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21 - Interpretation of 
statutes - Legislative intent. 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail -
Scope and ambit of -
Discussed. 
D 
s. 438 - Anticipatory bail - Grant or refusal of - Exercise 
of power - Relevant considerations for - Held: Courts should 
maintain fine balance between societal interest vis-a-vis 
personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle 
of criminal jurisprudence regarding presumption of innocence 
E of an accused until he is found guilty and sanctity of individual 
liberty - Discretion must be exercised on the basis of the 
available material and the facts of the particular case - When 
accused joins investigation and fully co-operates with the 
investigating agency, custodial interrogation should be 
F avoided - Bail - Criminal jurisprudence. 
Jurisprudence : Liberty - Personal liberty - Relevance 
and importance of - Explained. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 21 and 19(1) - Right 
G to life and personal liberty - Concept of - Explained. 
Doctrines: Doctrine of per incuriam - Judgment passed 
in ignorance of binding precedent - Held: Is rendered per 
incuriam. 
H 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 141 - Reference to 
SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE v. STATE OF 
203 
MAHARASHTRA 
larger Bench - When - Held: In case there is no judgment of A 
a Constitution Bench or larger Bench of binding nature and 
if the courl doubts the correctness of the judgments by two or 
three judges, then the proper course would be to refer the 
matter to a larger Bench of appropriate strength - Reference 
to larger Bench. 
B 
The appellant was a member of the Congress party. 
According to the prosecution, the appellant alongwith his 
brother instigated their party workers to fire gun shots at 
the workers of BJP party which led to killing of one 
C 
person. The incident of murder took place eight days 
after the alleged incident of instigation. Th~ appellant filed 
an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The High 
Court rejected the application. Therefore, the appellant 
filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
· HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, there is a direct 
judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.