Skip to main content

Bail already granted cannot be cancelled in a routine manner - Delhi HC

In the infamous suicide case of air hostess Geetika Sharma, the Court while dismissing the petition for cancellation of bail granted to accused Gopal Goyal Kanda, held that it is settled law that bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a routine manner. It can be cancelled only on a ground which has arisen after the bail was granted. In such cases the general presumption is that at the time of hearing the bail application, the prosecution has raised all the grounds against the accused in the matter of bail and, therefore, when once bail has been granted, the prosecution cannot have the bail cancelled on some circumstances which may have existed before the grant of bail. It was said that every accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and every accused person has the right to enjoy the bail granted to him unless there is evidence to show that he will abuse this right granted to him. In the instant case, the petitioner failed to bring any incriminating evidence which could create an adverse opinion regarding the conduct of respondent after the grant of bail.

In the instant case the victim left two suicide notes wherein she held the accused persons responsible for forcing her to commit suicide. The accused persons were charged with offences under Sections 306/506/201/120B/466/467/468/469/471/34 IPC and Section 66A of IT Act. The Court said that in absence of any violation of the terms of order granting bail, cancellation is not justified. It is pertinent to mention here that the Court has also passed a restraining order in this case, stopping the media from reporting the matter relating to offences under Section 376/377 in view of the fact that the said charges against the accused persons, have already been set aside in Crl.Rev.P. 305/2013 vide order dt. 25-07-2013 and 22-11-2013. [Ankit Sharma v. State of NCT of Delhi, CRL.M.C. 1542/2014, decided on 26 May, 2014]

 Article referred: http://blog.scconline.com/post/2014/06/21/bail-already-granted-cannot-be-cancelled-in-a-routine-manner.aspx

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...
Post a Comment
Read more