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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more