Author- Arpita Banerjee, University of Allahabad

KEYWORDS :

Anticipatory bail, criminal procedure code, supreme court, high court, bail, section 438 CrPC, general clauses act.

CASE DETAILS

FACTS OF THE CASE :

1. The appellant, Siddharam Satlingappa, belongs to the Indian National Congress Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘Congress Party’) and is allegedly accused in this case. The case as submitted by the Prosecution in the FIR (First Information Report) was that Sidramappa Patil was contesting the election of the State assembly representing the Bharatiya Janata Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘BJP’). It has been submitted in the report that Baburao Patil, Prakash Patil, Mahadev Patil, Mallikarjun Patil, Apparao Patil, Yeshwant Patil were supporters of the Congress Party and so also the supporters of the appellant Siddharam Mhetre and opposed to the BJP candidate.
2. Sidramappa Patil on 9.2009, around 6.00 p.m., came to the village to visit his party members and thereafter went to worship the divine God at Layavva Devi’s temple. He was accompanied by other party workers which included Shrimant Ishwarappa Kore, Bhimashankar Ishwarappa Kore, Kallapa Gaddi, Sangappa Gaddi, Suresh Zhalaki, Ankalgi, Gafur Patil, Layappa Gaddi, Mahadev Kore, Suresh Gaddi, Sarpanch of village Shivmurti Vijapure.
3. After the praying, when they came out of the temple, they were allegedly attacked by the supporters of Siddharam Satlingappa belongintoom the Congress Party. Amongst, two of them, Baburao Patil and Prakash Patil, started firing with their pistols which consequently hit Bhimashankar Ishwarappa Kore on his head and he died on the spot. Certain other members of the BJP party were assaulted.
4. According to the Prosecution, this group of people were instigated by the appellant and his brother,  reportedly eight days back when they visited the village and talked to the above-referred party workers. Denying which the appellant has applied for anticipatory bail, the provisions of which are mentioned under Sections 436 to 450 of he Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the pretext that the alleged accused is not compelled to face disgrace at the instance of influential people trying to implicate their rivals. The application was, however, rejected by the High Court and thereafter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

The case involves a matter of great public importance which pertains to an individual’s liberty. Therefore, the issues that were raised in this case were:

1. Whether the High Court had erred in denying bail to the Petitioner?
2. Whether bail should be granted as an exception or a rule?
3. What are the circumstances in which bail can be denied 

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and submitted before the apex court that the High Court was erroneous for declining the application for granting anticipatory bail to the appellant. He further emphasized the incorporation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. He submitted that times when influential people are posed with false cases by their rivals so as just to get them detained for some days.
2. The counsel claimed the innocence of the appellant and that he had been implicated in a false case. He supported his argument by mentioning the co-operation shown by the appellant during the investigation and it is highly unlikely that he will evade or otherwise misuse the liberty while on bail.
3. Bhushan contended on the importance of personal liberty citing various sources such as the 41^st Report of the Law Commission of India which highlighted the need and importance of protecting the personal liberty of an individual. Further in Criminal law, a person is innocent until proven guilty and therefore, the High Court’s interpretation of denying bail is an error.
4. Moreover, Courts have the discretion to grant or refuse anticipatory bail. However, this discretion must be exercised regarding legislative intention and guiding principles of criminal jurisprudence. The incorporation of this particular provision makes it quite crystal that the legislature understood such circumstances and made ways to protect personal liberty.
5. He submitted that according to the Gender Clauses Act, of 1897, the Court which grants bail also has the power to cancel the bail. A court can always review its decision and therefore, the grant, refusal, and cancellation of bail provided to  Siddharam Satlingappa can be undertaken by the court in instances of misuse of liberty.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Mahesh Jethmalini, a learned senior advocate appeared for respondent no 2 and submitted that based on the circumstances of the position and power of the appellant the High Court was justified in denying bail. And further anticipatory bail was provided in the rarest of rare cases. Cases involved which are non-serious.
2. He cited Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and relied on the ground that in murder cases custodial interrogation is of paramount importance especially where no eyewitness account is available.

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

The case deals with the ambit, scope and further analysis of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further ‘personal liberty’ as incorporated in Article 21 is also also under question. The related provisions for this case are as follows :

1. Section 437 and Section 439 CrPC: Granting and conditions of bail for bailable and non-bailable offences
2. Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty.
3. Article 141: Precedent value of judgments.

JUDGEMENT

1. The Supreme Court of India, in Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, established that the concept of bail relies entirely on the fundamental principle of individual liberty as provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court emphasized that bail should not be denied arbitrarily and that incarceration before conviction must be viewed cautiously.
2. The Court emphasized that ‘bail is the rule, and jail is the exception’. Denial of bail was held to be justified only in exceptional cases where impacting factors of misuse exist.
3. In this case, the Court overruled the decision of the High Court which denied bail to the accused, citing the reasons were insufficient for denial and therefore, did not satisfy the legal standards of denying bail.
4. The legal principles established in this rule were as follows :

• An accused in criminal cases is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, and this rule must be followed in deciding bail applications.
• Secondly, granting bail is the rule, while denial of bail is an exception.
• Bail should not be denied where there is concrete evidence of the accused fleeing from justice or the possibility of tampering with evidence or witness.
• Courts must create a bridge between societal interest and individual rights.

5. The Court clarified and reinforced the earlier laid down principles in :

• State of Rajasthan v. Balchand whereby the Court first articulated the principle of ‘bail is the rule and jail is the exception’.
• Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where the Court emphasized the importance of financial and social conditions in deciding bail.

CONCLUSION

The decision in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs. State of Maharashtra, affirms the fundamental right of personal liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It highlights the importance of the presumption of innocence, judicial discretion, and fairness in the applicability of anticipatory bail.

Further, the judgement seeks to provide a judicious interpretation of Section 438 Cr.P.C. It necessarily ensures it serves its intended purpose without being unduly restricted by judicial precedents that contradict the legislative intent.