Team  SoOLEGAL

Mere Registration Of Multifarious Cases Cannot Be The Ground For Cancellation of Bail: Karnataka High Court

Team SoOLEGAL 17 Nov 2020 4:27pm

Mere Registration Of Multifarious Cases Cannot Be The Ground For Cancellation of Bail: Karnataka High Court

In Ms. X vs. State of Karnataka, CRIMINAL PETITION No.4598/2020, the accused was found guilty  of several  offences, punishable under Sections 376, 417, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B of The Indian Penal Code, 1872, against which bail was granted to him by  several courts. Against such bail orders, a petition was filed by the complainant before The High Court of Karnataka seeking cancellation of bail for committing one of the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 506 and 417 of IPC, 1860.

It was argued by the learned counsel of complainant that the accused is a habitual offender and he is involved in criminal, civil and money recovery proceedings. The petition also states that there are 11 cases pending against the respondent out of which 3 were filed by women who have been cheated sexually and financially through a promise of marriage.

On the contrary, it was argued by the learned counsel of the respondent No. 2 (against whom the petition was filed) that merely because there are number of cases pending against the accused/respondent, the same cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender. The definition of a habitual offender makes it clear that that if any person who has been convicted in more than three cases, then he may be considered as an habitual offender. The cases which are listed out in the petition are pending cases and among them one is of civil nature and other are pertaining to different offences. Also, it is to be taken into consideration that the cancellation of such bail will affect the provisions of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of The Indian Constitution.

After hearing both the parties the bench headed by Justice H.P. Sandesh observes that mere registration of several cases against the respondent is not a ground to invoke the power granted under Section 439(2) of The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. To invoke the power under Section 439(2) of CrPC, 1973, The Court has to look into the material available on record and such material must show that there is violation of conditions of the bail order. Mere filing of cases which are in their pending stage is not a ground to come to the conclusion that he is an habitual offender.

 It was added that there is no doubt that several cases have been registered against  him, but it should be noted that in all the cases he has been released on bail invoking Sections 438 and 439 of CrPC, 1973, and not convicted. Hence, the criminal petition was dismissed by The Court.



Tagged: Karnataka High Court   Indian Penal Code   Indian Constitution   Justice H.P. Sandesh   Criminal Procedure Code  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 1 NO 0
Featured Members view all

×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTHTo Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com