SC On Bail

7/23/2019 SC On Bail

1/46

SC On Bail Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs StateOf MaharashtraPublished December 7, 2010 BailLeave a Comment

Here is the latest order from the Supreme Court of ndia on bail!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Bench# D Bhandari, $ P %adha&rishnan

' (H) S*P%)+) C*%( - 'D.

C%+'.L .PP)LL.() /*%SDC('

C%+'.L .PP).L '! 2271 2010! .risin out of SLP Crl! 'o!7314 of 2005 Siddharam Satlinappa

+hetre 6!!.ppellant ersus

State of +aharashtra and thers 6!!%espondents /*D8+)'(

Dalveer Bhandari, /!

1! Leave ranted!

2! (his appeal involves issues of reat public importance pertainin to the importance of individual9s

personal libert: and the societ:9s interest!

;! (he societ: has a vital interest in rant or refusal of bail because ever: criminal offence is the

offence aainst the State! (he order rantin or refusin bail must reflect perfect balance bet


2/46

(he appellant,


3/46

7! .ccordin to the prosecution, the appellant alon


4/46

either re?ect the application forth


5/46

; f such person is thereafter arrested


6/46

E(he Bill introduces a provision for the rant of anticipator: bail! (his is substantiall: in accordance


7/46

also pressed in service the aeJold principle that an individual is presumed to be innocent till he is

found uilt: b: the court!

1! (he Hih Court in the impuned ?udment has declined to rant anticipator: bail to the appellant

and arieved b: the said 11

order, the appellant has approached this Court b: filin this appeal!

15! +r! Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearin for the appellant submitted that the Hih

Court has ravel: erred in declinin the anticipator: bail to the appellant! He submitted that section

@; Cr!P!C!


8/46

2;! +r! Bhushan also submitted that an order of anticipator: bail does not in an:


9/46

discretion in rant or refusal of the anticipator: bail cannot be diluted b: interpretin the provisions

aainst the leislative intention! He submitted that the life is never static and ever: situation has to be

assessed and evaluated in the conteNt of emerin concerns as and e or anticipate all &inds of problems and situations


10/46

for the rant of anticipator: bail9, the purpose of limitin it! .ccordinl:,


11/46

of rare cases


12/46

E66!!t is not possible to uphold the contention that perception of the Supreme Court, as


13/46

them! n these circumstances, the observations made in the subse=uent ?udments to the effect that

anticipator: bail should be for a limited period of time, must 22

be construed to be per incuriam and the decision of the Constitution Bench preferred!

;5! He further submitted that the said issue came up for consideration before the +adras Hih Court

reported in Palani&umar and .nother v! State 2007 @ C(C 1


14/46

liberties to the State! .ccordin to .ristotle, as the state


15/46

@! .s /ohn )!)!D! in his monoraph .ction on E)ssa:s on -reedom and Po

rihts are vital and most important freedoms


16/46

individuals composin the state must, in their o


17/46

43! )minent )nlish /ude Lord .lfred Dennin observed# EB: personal freedom mean freedom of

ever: la< abidin citi>en to thin&


18/46

the riht secured b: .rticle 21 is available to ever: citi>en or nonJciti>en, accordin to this article, ted possessions of an individual! (he inner ure for

freedom is a natural phenomenon of ever: human bein! %espect for life, libert: and propert: is not

merel: a norm or a polic: of the State but an essential re=uirement of an: civili>ed societ:!

32! (his court defined the term Epersonal libert:G immediatel: after the Constitution came in force in

ndia in the case of .! $! ;2

8opalan v! (he State of +adras, .% 1540 SC 27! (he eNpression Apersonal libert:9 has


19/46

these are directl: imposed or indirectl: brouht about b: calculated measure! (he court held that

Apersonal libert:9 in .rticle 21 includes all varieties of freedoms eNcept those included in .rticle 15!

34! n +ane&a 8andhi v! *nion of ndia and .nother 157 1 SCC 2@, this court eNpanded the scope

of the eNpression Apersonal libert:9 as used in .rticle 21 of the Constitution of ndia! (he court

re?ected the arument that the eNpression Apersonal libert:9 must be so interpreted as to avoid

overlappin bet


20/46

application of the .rticle aainst arbitrar: encroachment b: the eNecutives has been eNpanded b:

liberal interpretation of the components of the .rticle in tune


21/46

7;! (his court remar&ed that an undertrial prisoner should not be put in fetters


22/46

t is implicit in .rticles 1@ and 15 that in to humble a man b: manaclin him! Such arbitrar:

conduct surel: slaps .rticle 1@ on the face! (he minimal freedom of movement


23/46

destro:ed, nor ed societies

and their leal s:stem and b: the internationall: reconi>ed statements of human rihts! See# % on

the application of Prett: v! Director of Public Prosecutions 2002 1 .ll )% 1!

*!S!.!

75! (he importance of personal libert: is reflected in the -ifth .mendment to the Constitution of

*!S!.! 1751

1! .rticle 22 of the Kest 8erman Constitution 15@ declares#

E)ver:one shall have the riht to life and ph:sical inviolabilit:! (he freedom of the individual shall be

inviolable! (hese rihts ma: be interfered


24/46

(houh the freedom of life and libert: uaranteed b: the above .rticle ma: be restricted, such

restriction

C.'.D.

@! S! 11 of the Canadian Bill of %ihts .ct, 1530, adopted the ADue Process9 Clause from the

.merican Constitution! But the difference in the Canadian setJup


25/46

Canadian Court ed b: Parliament and the

Courts in Canada9! (he result

some other provision, it should be interpreted as in ndia!

P.$S(.'

3! .rticle 5 %iht to life and Libert:! M ESecurit: of Person # 'o person shall be deprived of life and

libert: save in accordance ')P.L

7! n the 1532 M Constitution of 'epal, there is .rticle 111


26/46

E'o one shall be sub?ected to arbitrar: arrest, detention or eNile!G

Cl!10 sa:s#

E)ver:one is entitled in full e=ualit: to a fair and public hearin b: an independent and impartial

tribunal, in the determination of his rihts and obliations and of an: criminal chare aainst him!G R.s

to its leal effect, see +! v! ranisation Bele, 1572 @4 nter, L% @@3 @@7, @41, et! S=!

5! Covenant on Civil and Political %ihts M .rticle 51 of the *!'! 1533, 1533 sa:s#

E)ver:one has the riht to libert: and securit: of person! 'o one shall be sub?ected to arbitrar: arrest

or detention! 'o one shall be deprived of his libert: eNcept on such rounds and in accordance 50! )uropean Convention on Human %ihts, 1540! M (his Convention contains a most elaborate and

detailed codification of the rihts and safeuards for the protection of life and personal libert: aainst

arbitrar: invasion!

51! n ever: civili>ed democratic countr:, libert: is considered to be the most precious human riht of

ever: person! (he La< Commission of ndia in its 177th %eport under the headin Antroduction to the

doctrine of EarrestG has described as folloen, 175, spo&e of libert: bein one of the natural and

inalienable rihts of man! (he universal declaration of human rihts adopted b: the eneral assembl:

on *nited 'ations on December 10, 15@ contains several articles desined to protect and promote

the libert: of individual! So does the international covenant on civil and political rihts, 1553! .bove

all, .rticle 21 of the Constitution of ndia proclaims that no one shall be deprived of his riht to

personal libert: eNcept in accordance and .rticle 22 are born out of a concern for human libert:! .s it is often said, Eone reali>es the value

of libert: onl:


27/46

the maintenance of peace, la< and order in the societ:! *nless, there is peace, no real proress is

possible! Societal peace lends stabilit: and securit: to the polit:! t provides the necessar: conditions

for ro


28/46

complainant and the investiatin officer is established then action be ta&en aainst the investiatin

officer in accordance 54! (he ravit: of chare and eNact role of the accused must be properl: comprehended! Before

arrest, the arrestin officer must record the valid reasons


29/46

55! .s aptl: observed in Sibbia9s case supra that a


30/46

10@! (he intention of the leislature is =uite clear that the po


31/46

found in the enactment and brinin in restrictions


32/46

of anticipator: bail on mere apprehension of bein arrested on accusation of havin committed a nonJ

bailable offence! 'o arrest should be made because it is la


33/46

unreasonable limitation on the individual9s riht to obtain an order of anticipator: bail! mposition of

an unfair or unreasonable limitation, accordin to the learned Counsel,


34/46

E(he concern of the courts enerall: is to preserve their discretion a limited period and on the eNpir: of that duration it should be left to the reular court to deal ranted at a stae


35/46

31

e .lthouh the po


36/46

or the Court of Sessions to eNercise their ?urisdiction under section @; Cr!P!C! b: a


37/46

humiliation and un?ustified detention of the accused

iN! (he court to consider reasonable apprehension of tamperin of the


38/46

lare, nearl: 30U of the arrests


39/46

1;0! )Nercise of ?urisdiction under section @; of Cr!P!C! is eNtremel: important ?udicial function of a

?ude and must be entrusted to ?udicial officers e

e ?udicial officers, police

officers and investiatin officers so that the: can properl: comprehend the importance of personal

libert: visJAJvis social 3

interests! (he: must learn to maintain fine balance bet


40/46

1;@! n vie< of the clear declaration of la< laid do


41/46

1;5! 'o<

.uthorities pp! 257J5, para 47 per incuriam has been elucidated as under#

E. decision is iven per incuriam


42/46

terms of a statute or rule havin

statutor: force!G

1@0! Lord 8odard, C!/! in Huddersfield Police .uthorit: v! Katson 15@7 2 .ll )% 15; observed that


43/46

1@@! n %! (hiruvir&olam v! Presidin fficer and .nother 1557 1 SCC 5 a t


44/46

for doin so! (herefore, it has become necessar: to reiterate that disrespect to the constitutional ethos

and breach of discipline have rave impact on the 73

credibilit: of ?udicial institution and encouraes chance litiation! t must be remembered that

predictabilit: and certaint: is an important hallmar& of ?udicial ?urisprudence developed in this countr:

in the last siN decades and increase in the fre=uenc: of conflictin ?udments of the superior ?udiciar:


45/46

?udments mentioned in pararaphs 1;4 and 1;3 are b: t


46/46

'e< Delhi

December 2, 2010

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

Documents

SC On Bail