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

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