Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SALAUDDIN ABDULSAMAD SHAIKH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1995
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
SEN, S.C. (J)
PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1042 1996 SCC (1) 667
JT 1995 (9) 165 1995 SCALE (7)272
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
The petitioner field an application in the High Court
being Criminal Application No.2230/95 under Section 438 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and secured an ad-interim
anticipatory bail order which was to ensure 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 ensure
upto 26.9.1995. When the matter came up on that day for
final disposal before the same learned Judge, he directed
the petitioner to move a regular bail application before the
Court which was in seining of the criminal case pending
against him and observed that the bail application should be
disposed of uninfluenced by the observations made in the
earlier order of 13.9.1995. 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 entertain this petition. Under
Section 400 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when any
person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an
accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, the
High Court or the Court of Session may, if it thinks fit,
direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be
released on bail and in passing that order, it may include
such conditions having regard to the facts of the particular
case, as it may deem appropriate. Anticipatory bail is
granted in anticipation of arrest in non-bailable cases, but
that does not mean that the regular court, which is to try
the offender, is sought to be by-passed and that is the
reason why the High Court very rightly fixed the outer date
for the continuance of the bail and on the date of its
expiry directed the petitioner to move the regular Court for
bail. That is the correct procedure to follow because it
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
must be realised that when the Court of Session or the High
Court is granting anticipatory bail, it is granted at a
stage when the investigation is incomplete and, therefore,
it is not informed about the nature of evidence against the
alleged offender. 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. In the
instant case, therefore, the High Court had followed the
correct procedure and we see no reason to interfere.
However, Mr.Phasme, learned counsel for the petitioner,
states that since this Court had granted an interim order by
which the duration of the order was extended he has not
applied for bail before the regular Court. He may do so, if
he so desires, within two weeks from today. The petition
will stand disposed of accordingly.