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

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more