Salauddin
Abdul Samad Shaikh Vs. The State of Maharashtra [1995] INSC 820 (11 December
1995)
Ahmadi
A.M. (Cj) 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:
HEAD NOTE:
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 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.
Back