Naresh Shridhar v State of Maharashtra
Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1966 SC 259
Background:
The case involved Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar, who sought anticipatory bail from the Bombay High Court.
The key question was whether the High Court had the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the police arrested him.
At the time, anticipatory bail was a relatively new concept in Indian law, introduced to prevent unnecessary arrests.
Key Legal Issues:
Whether the High Court has the power to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Conditions and scope of anticipatory bail — when and how it should be granted.
Balance between protecting personal liberty and the need for investigation in criminal cases.
Court’s Observations and Holding:
1. Power of High Court under Section 438 CrPC:
The Supreme Court held unequivocally that the High Court has the inherent jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail.
Section 438 was interpreted as empowering the High Court to direct the police or other authorities not to arrest the person.
2. Conditions for Granting Anticipatory Bail:
The Court said anticipatory bail should be granted only when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person may be falsely implicated or arrested without sufficient cause.
It is not an automatic right and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
3. Protection of Personal Liberty:
The Court emphasized the importance of protecting the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Arrest should not be a tool for harassment or intimidation.
Legal Significance:
This case is the first landmark judgment that clarified and laid down the principles of anticipatory bail in Indian criminal jurisprudence.
It provided a statutory basis and procedural clarity for granting anticipatory bail under CrPC.
It balances the individual’s liberty with the State’s interest in investigation and law enforcement.
The principles laid down here guide courts even today while considering anticipatory bail applications.
Subsequent Related Cases:
1. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (1980)
The Supreme Court elaborated on anticipatory bail, stressing its preventive nature and the discretion of courts.
2. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (Delhi Administration) (2001)
Reinforced that anticipatory bail is a right, not a concession.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (1966) |
| Main Issue | Power of High Court to grant anticipatory bail |
| Held | High Court can grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC |
| Conditions | Based on reasonable grounds; not an automatic right |
| Legal Impact | Foundational case on anticipatory bail in Indian criminal law |
RELATED Blog
0 comments