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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

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