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.
Bail granted-Observed: While the learned Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based […]
While the learned Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based on the materials produced in a sealed cover.
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.
Therefore, the status of a witness is convertible to the accused during the course of investigation subject to the collection of independent sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, which must be in the nature of startling and clinching in sense.
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.
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.
An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18.7.2019 in connection with Ballygunge P.S case no. 27 of 2019 dated 1.3.2019 under sections 420/406/467/468/471/120B of the IPC – Bail granted
Bail granted – In the matter of: Riday @ Hriday Ghosh @ Ridoy – The accused was not named in the first information report and as co-accused persons are on regular bail/anticipatory bail, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
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
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
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.
Pocso Act 2012 S 31. Application of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to proceedings before a Special Court: Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal […]
Discharge of person apprehended No person who has been arrested by a police officer shall be discharged except on his own bond, or on bail, or under the special order of a […]
An order of anticipatory bail virtually converts a non bailable offence under the Code to a bailable one subject, of course, to appropriate conditions which the Court can in the interests of […]
PRAJESH SHANTILAL VAGHANI Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU AND ANOTHER BOMBAY
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.
The Jharkhand HC Advocate Association general secretary said HCs in Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka had issued similar directions to some litigants to pay costs towards the relief fund in Kerala. Bombay HC […]
The Provision is Mandatory. In Natabar Parida v. State of Orissa, AIR 1975 SC 1465, the Court explained the mandatory character of the requirement of the proviso to S. 167(2) that an […]
KEYWORDS:-BAIL In deciding BAIL applications an important factor which should certainly be taken into consideration by the court is the delay in concluding the trial. (2011) 13 SCALE 107 (SUPREME COURT OF […]
