Category: Bail Matters

Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.

Justice S.P. Talukdar committee failed to sell property of Tower Group accused of Rs.350 Crores Scam, SC observed while cancelling bail of the group Chairman

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

CANCELLATION OF BAIL-However, it is argued by both the Counsel that the amount may be about Rs. 350 Crores. Be that as it may, having regard to the material on record, and since a huge amount of money belonging to investors has been siphoned off, as well as for the aforesaid reasons, the High Court, in our considered opinion, should not have released the Respondent on bail.

P. CHIDAMBARAM VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – 5/9/2019

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGMENTS

Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation.

P. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [DHC]-20/08/2019

Anticipatory Bail application cancelled – Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act – Pre-arrest is not meant for high profile economic offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the Law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high profile cases like the instant one.

SRI MURUGESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 498A, 302 — Offence punishable under Sections 498(A), 302 of IPC — Petitioner shall not tamper with the witnesses or in any manner interfere with or put obstacle to the investigation — Breach of any one of the above conditions will entitle the prosecution to move this Court for cancellation of the bail granted

SRI DASAIAH AND SMT. RATHNAMMAVs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 — Cancellation of bail granted — Petitioners having been unsuccessful in obtaining bail before jurisdictional Sessions Court are before the Court praying for being enlarged on bail — Petitioners shall not leave the jurisdiction of Sessions Court without express permission and they shall appear before Sessions Court on all the dates of hearing — If any such incident is reported prosecution is at liberty to move this Court for cancellation of bail granted

GANAPATI AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF MYSORE

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 147, 148, 307 — Cancelling the bail granted -Once the police had filed a charge sheet in the case, the Magistrate was not at all justified in entertaining any petition filed on behalf of the private complainant and that too acting upon it. behind the back of the accused and cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners-accused.

Court should not impose excessive condition for granting bail

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 437 – Bail – Conditions for – Excessively onerous condition that accused should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lacs at stage of FIR – Accused failed to make the payment of said amount and languishing in jail endlessly – Not proper. Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate imposing condition that accused should pay a huge sum of Rs. 2 lacs to be set at liberty, not proper. If he had paid it is a different matter. But the fact that he was not able to pay that amount and in default thereof he is to languish in jail for more than 10 months now, is sufficient indication that he was unable to make up the amount. Can he be detained in custody endlessly for his inability to pay the amount in the range of Rs. 2 lacs. If the cheques issued by his surety were dishonoured, the Court could perhaps have taken it as a ground to suggest to the payee of the cheques to resort to his legal remedies provided by law.