“(1) Whether the protection granted to a person under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be limited to a fixed period so as to enable the person to surrender before the Trial Court and […]
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.
The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
SC granted bail to P. Chidambaram subject to executing bail bonds of Rs.2 lakhs u/s 439 of Cr.PC- 4/11/2019
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.
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
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.