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

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more