{"id":248608,"date":"2008-03-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-03-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-11T18:54:24","modified_gmt":"2018-08-11T13:24:24","slug":"bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","title":{"rendered":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  549 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nBharath Metha\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState by Inspector of Police Chennai\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/03\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1595 of 2005)<\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">2.\tChallenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single<br \/>\nJudge of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition filed by<br \/>\nthe appellant.  The Criminal Revision was filed against order<br \/>\ndated 22.12.2003 made in CMP No. 7255 of 2003 by the Court of<br \/>\nJudicial Magistrate No. II, Ponneri, dismissing the petition filed<br \/>\nby the appellant under <a href=\"\/doc\/768169\/\" id=\"a_1\">Sections 451<\/a> and <a href=\"\/doc\/239420\/\" id=\"a_1\">457<\/a> of the Code of<br \/>\nCriminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the <a href=\"\/doc\/445276\/\" id=\"a_2\">Cr.P.C<\/a>.).  The application<br \/>\nwas filed for release of lorry bearing Registration No. TN-01-F-<br \/>\n9797 which was alleged to have been involved in a case<br \/>\nregistered for offences punishable under various provisions of the<br \/>\nTamil Nadu Prohibition Act.  The case of the appellant before the<br \/>\nHigh Court was that money was provided to the respondent No. 2<br \/>\nto purchase the said lorry under a hire purchase agreement. In<br \/>\nterms of the agreement, the hirer was required to pay 32 monthly<br \/>\ninstalments of Rs.14,875\/- between the period from 24.6.2000<br \/>\nand 24.1.2003.  Under the hire purchase laws, the hirer can<br \/>\nbecome the owner of the vehicle by exercising the option to<br \/>\npurchase after paying the entire amount due and till that time<br \/>\nthe financier is the owner. The financier is also entitled to<br \/>\npossession of the vehicle since he is the owner. In the agreement,<br \/>\nappellant is described as the owner and the respondent no.2 as<br \/>\nthe hirer.  The appellant tried to take possession of the vehicle as<br \/>\nan owner but the vehicle was not available at the premises and<br \/>\non enquiry appellant came to know that the police had seized the<br \/>\nsame on 6.9.2000 when the vehicle was operating with a fake<br \/>\nnumber plate for transporting prohibited spirit. The First<br \/>\nInformation Report was lodged against respondent No.2 and<br \/>\ntherefore the appellant prayed for release of the vehicle. The<br \/>\nprayer was resisted by the State on the ground that the vehicle<br \/>\nhad already been directed to be returned to the respondent No.2<br \/>\nas he was the owner as per the Registration Certification.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">3.\tThe High Court noted that the vehicle was involved in<br \/>\ncommission of offences punishable under Sections 4(I)(A) and<br \/>\n4(1)(aaa) of the Act read with Rules 5 &amp; 6 of Rectified Spirit<br \/>\nRules.  High Court also noted that though an order had been<br \/>\npassed for releasing the vehicle in favour of respondent No. 2, he<br \/>\nhad not taken custody of the same though the order was passed<br \/>\non 23.1.2001.  The High Court also noted that since the<br \/>\nrespondent No.2 was registered as owner of the vehicle and<br \/>\nappellant was only the financier, the vehicle could not be<br \/>\nreleased as prayed for.  Accordingly, as noted above, the criminal<br \/>\nrevision petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">4.\tLearned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the<br \/>\ncertificate of registration there is clearly an endorsement to the<br \/>\neffect that the vehicle was hired under the hire purchase<br \/>\nagreement. It was also clearly endorsed that the hirer had<br \/>\nentered into hire purchase agreement with Subham Credits<br \/>\nrepresented by the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">5.\tLearned counsel for the State clearly stated that though an<br \/>\norder was passed permitting to respondent No.2 that release of<br \/>\nthe vehicle by executing bond of Rs.1,00,000\/- with two sureties<br \/>\nof like sum and other condition that he shall not alienate or<br \/>\nencumber or alter  the vehicle  and shall produce the vehicle as<br \/>\nand  when required by the trial court, the said condition has not<br \/>\nbeen complied with.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">6.\tIt is to be noted that respondent No. 2 did not appear before<br \/>\nthe High Court in the connected proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">7.\tThe nature of hire purchase agreement has been noted by<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1036461\/\" id=\"a_3\">Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra<\/a> (2001(7)<br \/>\nSCC 417). At page 421 it was noted as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">5. Hire-purchase agreements are executory<br \/>\ncontracts under which the goods are let on<br \/>\nhire and the hirer has an option to purchase in<br \/>\naccordance with the terms of the agreement.<br \/>\nThese types of agreements were originally<br \/>\nentered into between the dealer and the<br \/>\ncustomer and the dealer used to extend credit<br \/>\nto the customer. But as hire-purchase scheme<br \/>\ngained in popularity and in size, the dealers<br \/>\nwho were not endowed with liberal amount of<br \/>\nworking capital found it difficult to extend the<br \/>\nscheme to many customers. Then the<br \/>\nfinanciers came into the picture. The finance<br \/>\ncompany would buy the goods from the dealer<br \/>\nand let them to the customer under hire-\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">purchase agreement. The dealer would deliver<br \/>\nthe goods to the customer who would then<br \/>\ndrop out of the transaction leaving the finance<br \/>\ncompany to collect instalments directly from<br \/>\nthe customer. Under hire-purchase agreement,<br \/>\nthe hirer is simply paying for the use of the<br \/>\ngoods and for the option to purchase them.<br \/>\nThe finance charge, representing the difference<br \/>\nbetween the cash price and the hire-purchase<br \/>\nprice, is not interest but represents a sum<br \/>\nwhich the hirer has to pay for the privilege of<br \/>\nbeing allowed to discharge the purchase price<br \/>\nof goods by instalments.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">6. Though in India, Parliament has passed the<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1574709\/\" id=\"a_4\">Hire Purchase Act<\/a>, 1972, the same has not<br \/>\nbeen notified in the Official Gazette by the<br \/>\nCentral Government so far. An initial<br \/>\nnotification was issued and the same was<br \/>\nwithdrawn later. The rules relating to hire-<br \/>\npurchase agreements are delineated by the<br \/>\ndecisions of higher courts. There are a series of<br \/>\ndecisions of this Court explaining the nature of<br \/>\nthe hire-purchase agreement and mostly these<br \/>\ndecisions were rendered when the question<br \/>\narose whether there was a sale so as to attract<br \/>\npayment of tax under the <a href=\"\/doc\/1645178\/\" id=\"a_5\">Sales Tax Act<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">7. <a href=\"\/doc\/735056\/\" id=\"a_6\">In Damodar Valley Corpn. v. State of Bihar<\/a><br \/>\n(AIR 1961 SC 440) this Court took the view<br \/>\nthat a mere contract of hiring, without more, is<br \/>\na species of the contract of bailment, which<br \/>\ndoes not create a title in the bailee, but the law<br \/>\nof hire purchase has undergone considerable<br \/>\ndevelopment during the last half a century or<br \/>\nmore and has introduced a number of<br \/>\nvariations, thus leading to categories and it<br \/>\nbecomes a question of some nicety as to which<br \/>\ncategory a particular contract between the<br \/>\nparties comes under. Ordinarily, a contract of<br \/>\nhire purchase confers no title on the hirer, but<br \/>\na mere option to purchase on fulfilment of<br \/>\ncertain conditions. But a contract of hire<br \/>\npurchase may also provide for the agreement<br \/>\nto purchase the thing hired by deferred<br \/>\npayments subject to the condition that title to<br \/>\nthe thing shall not pass until all the<br \/>\ninstalments have been paid. There may be<br \/>\nother variations of a contract of hire purchase<br \/>\ndepending upon the terms agreed between the<br \/>\nparties. When rights in third parties have been<br \/>\ncreated by acts of parties or by operation of<br \/>\nlaw, the question may arise as to what exactly<br \/>\nwere the rights and obligations of the parties to<br \/>\nthe original contract.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">8. In K.L. Johar &amp; Co. v. CTO (AIR 1965 SC<br \/>\n1082) this Court took the view that a hire-<br \/>\npurchase agreement has two elements: (1)<br \/>\nelement of bailment; and (2) element of sale, in<br \/>\nthe sense that it contemplates an eventual<br \/>\nsale. The element of sale fructifies when the<br \/>\noption is exercised by the intending purchaser<br \/>\nafter fulfilling the terms of the agreement.<br \/>\nWhen all the terms of the agreement are<br \/>\nsatisfied and the option is exercised a sale<br \/>\ntakes place of the goods which till then had<br \/>\nbeen hired.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">8.\tThe scope and ambit of <a href=\"\/doc\/768169\/\" id=\"a_7\">Section 451<\/a> Cr.P.C. was highlighted<br \/>\nby this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1737714\/\" id=\"a_8\">Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat<\/a><br \/>\n(2002(10) SCC 283).\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">9.\tUndisputedly, in the Registration Certificate the name of the<br \/>\nfinancier has been indicated and the factum that the vehicle was<br \/>\nsubject to such an agreement was also noted.  In the agreement,<br \/>\nappellant is described as owner, but respondent no.2 as hirer.  It<br \/>\nis noticed that the respondent No.2 had applied for the release of<br \/>\nthe vehicle and the High Court had directed the release of vehicle<br \/>\non certain conditions. Undisputedly, those conditions have not<br \/>\nbeen fulfilled.  The vehicle is, therefore, lying with the seizing<br \/>\nauthorities for nearly eight years now.  In view of the factual<br \/>\nposition highlighted above, we direct release of the vehicle in<br \/>\nfavour of the appellant subject to fulfillment of the conditions<br \/>\nwhich were stipulated for the respondent No.2.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">10.\tThe appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, P. Sathasivam CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 549 of 2008 PETITIONER: Bharath Metha RESPONDENT: State by Inspector of Police Chennai DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/03\/2008 BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; P. SATHASIVAM [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-248608","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1395,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\",\"name\":\"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008","datePublished":"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008"},"wordCount":1395,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008","name":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police ... on 25 March, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-03-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-11T13:24:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bharath-metha-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-25-march-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bharath Metha vs State By Inspector Of Police &#8230; on 25 March, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248608","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=248608"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/248608\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=248608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=248608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=248608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}