Skip to main content

Bail conditions should not be onerous: Madras High Court

Observing that imposition of onerous and stringent conditions amount to denial of bail, the Madras High Court has set aside an order of a lower court directing nine persons accused of dacoity to deposit Rs 25,000 each as cash security for availing bail. Allowing petitions by the nine accused, Justice P Devadass quashed the bail order of Tirupattur Assistant Sessions Judge holding that it was totally not in accordance with law.

He directed the petitioners, charged with offences of dacoity and causing death or grievous injuries, to furnish own bail bond for Rs.5,000 each to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of Central Prison at Vellore. ”Imposition of onerous and stringent conditions amount to denial of bail. Actually, our bail system is not mainly based on any cash system. If it is so, poor people have to spend rest of their life in jail itself. The object of bail is to enable the accused to go out of jail with an assurance to return to the Court to put up an effective defense.”

Further, the petitioners are poor and languishing in jail nearly for five years. Although bail was granted to them on August 21 last year, they could not yet come out of jail, indicating that the bail-condition imposed by the trial court was onerous, he held. Thus, directing poor men to deposit Rs.25,000 was against Article 21 of Constitution and also International Covenants which have been ratified by the country, he added.

The Judge also observed that when the accused are poor and unable to engage a counsel to file bail application it was the constitutional duty of the trial court in its capacity as the Chairman of the Legal Services Authority at the taluk level to nominate Legal Aid panel advocates to file bail pleas. He directed the Chairman/Sub-Judge,Taluk Legal Services Committee, Tirupattur, to engage Legal Aid Panel advocates to defend the petitioners if they have not engaged counsel. The trial court shall take all out efforts to dispose of the cases at an early date, he added.

 Article referred: http://www.india.com/news/india/bail-conditions-should-not-be-onerous-madras-high-court-345301/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
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