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

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

Flat owner without legal title has consumer rights

In a significant judgment, the South Mumbai Consumer Forum has held that a flat owner legally occupying the flat would be a consumer, even if his title to the flat might be in dispute before a competent court. Thurlow owned a flat in a co-operative society. Appuswami was residing with him. In 1976, Appuswami got married in the same flat, and his wife started residing in the same flat. They had three children, born and brought up in the same flat. After Thurlow expired in 2004, Appuswami approached the High Court for inheritance to Thurlow's estate but expired while the matter was pending. His wife and children were brought on record. Subsequently, the society intervened, contending Appuswami did not have any right to the flat and it should be handed over to the Society. The Appuswami family continued to reside in the flat, and even pay the society's outgoings and maintenance charges. Later, the society stopped collecting maintenance charges from all members, as it earned...
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subs...
Post a Comment
Read more