kartik
LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON 'BAIL'
kartik mago 14 Mar 2019

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON 'BAIL'

ASLAM BABALAL DESAI v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(1992)

In general, grounds for bail cancellation are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice, or evasion or attempt to evade the course of justice or abuse of the liberty granted to him. When the accused is granted bail under Section 167(2) for the prosecution being at default for not completing the investigation within 60 days after the defect being cured by chargesheet being filed, the bail may be deemed to be cancelled on the ground that reasonable grounds do exist for the accused committing a non-bailable offence. It is necessary for him to be arrested and taken into custody. Strong grounds are necessary to cancel the bail and are to be made out in the charge-sheet. 

 

DEEPAK KUMAR SAH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

(2015)

The petitioner was in jail for 9 months. The complainant had became pregnant after having consensual physical relations with him. Hence, the petitioner is liable to maintain the lady and at the time of delivery needed to be with her. Hence, Patna High Court granted bail to him but only on the condition that he had to furnish a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Naugachia.

 

NITYANAND RAI v. STATE OF BIHAR

(2005)

The Bihar High Court has held for the bail to be cancelled, the grounds must be those which arise after the bail is granted. The circumstances of the ground needs to mandatory refer the the conduct of the accused while he is on bail.

 

ANKIT SHARMA v. STATE OF N.C.T OF DELHI AND ANR

(2014)

In this case, the Delhi High Court has distinguished between the two aspects of bail- cancellation of bail and rejection of bail. The Court has held that the grounds of both i.e., cancellation and rejection of bail are two different things. The circumstances of both are quite different. Hence, the Court's approach has to be distinct while dealing with the two cases.

While dealing with the hearing of bail application, the focus of the Court is on the violation of conditions of bail. On the other hand, while dealing with cancellation of bail, the Court also focuses on whether actual violation has taken place or not.

 

GURBAKSH SINGH SIBBIA v. STATE OF PUNJAB

1980 AIR 1632

The Apex Court has held that for granting anticipatory bail, the authorities are at a discretion to do so. This power to grant anticipatory bail has to be exercised objectively and open to correction by the higher courts. The power conferred under Section 438 is an extraordinary one. The power to grant anticipatory bail should be exercised with due care and circumspection.

The Court consequently held that

"The question as regards the interpretation of Section 438 Cr. P.C. did not at all arise in that case, and that the said case was mainly concerned with Rule 184 of the Defence and Internal Security of India Rules, 1971, and whether S. 438 applied in such a situation."

 

 

SURESH CHAND v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 

2001 (2) RLR 757

The Court held that after the first bail application was rejected under Section 438 CrPC by the Delhi High Court, the second such application is not maintainable. The power to grant anticipatory bail does not flow from Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is merely conferred by the statute. The Court further observed that the Law Commission's intention was to prevent the provisions of anticipatory bail from being abused at the instance of unscrupulous petitioners and this extraordinary remedy has to be restored to only in exceptional cases.

 

 K.L. VERMA v. STATE AND ANOTHER

(1996) 7 SCALE 20

The Court made observations on the duration of granting anticipatory bail. It held that

" Till the bail application is disposed of one way or the other the court may allow the accused to remain on anticipatory bail. To put it differently, anticipatory bail may be granted for a duration which may extend to the date on which the bail application is disposed of or even a few days thereafter to enable the accused persons to move the higher court, if they so desire. "

 

RASIKLAL v. KISHORE KHANCHAND WADHWANI

(2009)

The Court held that in case of bailable offences, the arrested person's right to claim bail is absolute and indefeasible. If the bail papers in name of the accused person are prepared, the police official or Court is bound to release him from their custody or detention. The only choice available to them is demanding security in surety and if the accused is willing to abide by reasonable conditions which may be imposed on him. It held that

Order of granting bail is judicial act and not ministerial act and thus reasons must form the basis for any order on bail application.

 

BALCHAND JAIN v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

1977 AIR 366

The Court, in this case, decided upon the object of section 438. It held that the underlying object of section 438 is that the moment a person is arrested, if he has already obtained an order from the Sessions Judge or the High Court, he would be released immediately without having to undergo the rigorous of jail even for a few days which would necessarily be taken up if he has to apply for bail after arrest.

 

 

SALAUDDIN ABDULSAMAD SHAIKH v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(1995)

The Court held that 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 realized 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.

 

SANTOSH KUMAR MANDAL v. STATE

(2016)

The Court reiterated on bail under POCSO Act. It held that the offence which is punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual offences Act is a non-bailable offence. Thus, it the accused cannot claim bail under that section exercising his right to claim bail.

 

ASHIM KUMAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

AIR 1972 SC 2561

Supreme Court laid down that the mere fact that where the concerned person was actually in jail custody at the time when an order of detention was passed against him and was not likely to be released for a fair length of time, it would be possible to contend that there could be no satisfaction on the part of the detaining authority as to the likelihood of such a person indulging in prejudicial activities.

 

H.S. PANNU v. GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI AND ANR

(2007)

The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was in question. The designated court did not withstand anything contained to contrary in the CrPC it obliged by following a different procedure to satisfy itself that there existed reasonable grounds of the accused not being guilty of the offence and was unlikely to commit similar offences, if enlarged on bail.

 

ANIL MAHAJAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & ANR

2000 CriLJ 2094

The Court observed that if the legislature wanted the Courts to treat economic offences differently from other offences in the matter of granting bail, they could have specified some special provisions which would put limitations on granting bail. But in the absence of such special provisions, the  general principles governing the grant would apply on the cases involving economic offences.

 

V.S. NORTI AND ORS. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

ILR 1989 KAR 943

The Karnataka High Court held that "it cannot be said that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that in a murder case when the investigation is still incomplete anticipatory bail should not be granted to be a principle laid down as applicable to the facts in the case. It cannot also be said that the principle laid down is governed or qualified by the particular facts in the said case. The Supreme Court stated the principle as a rule of law, applied it to the case before it and acted on it. It clearly held that the principle governs a case in which the applicant seeking anticipatory bail is accused of the offence of murder and in which the investigation is incomplete."

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
Send
Featured Members view all

New 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.