Skip to main content

If an earlier application was rejected by a lower Court, the upper Court can always entertain the successive bail application

In Usman Ahmed vs Union Territory Of J&K And Another, FIR for offences under Sections 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) came to be registered by the Police on the basis of an information received from the reliable sources to the effect that, Petitioner herein was in possession of charas for its illicit trade. During investigation of the case, 183 gms of charas was recovered from the possession of the Petitioner. Its sample was taken and sent to the FSL for chemical examination. Upon receipt of the report of FSL and completion of investigation, offences under Sections 8/20 of NDPS Act were found established against the Petitioner and challan was filed against him. 

The Petitioner's application for grant of bail before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge was rejected by the Court. Being aggrieved of the said order, the Petitioner has filed the instant petition before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for grant of bail in his favour on the grounds that, the contraband allegedly shown to be recovered from the possession of the Petitioner is an intermediate quantity, as such, the rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act will not apply to the present case; that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. 

The State objected to the petition arguing among others that successive bail applications cannot lie before this Court. 

The High Court held that if an earlier application was rejected by an inferior court, the superior court can always entertain the successive bail application. The rejection of a bail application by Sessions Court does not operate as a bar for the High Court in entertaining a similar application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the same facts and for the same offence. 

Further the High Court held that the observation of learned trial Court while rejecting the bail application of the Petitioner that, the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and the same affects the society in general and the young generation in particular, cannot be the sole reason for rejection of the bail application, particularly when the allegations are yet to be established. Allowing the petitioner to remain in custody because of the reason that the offences alleged to have been committed by him are serious in nature, would amount to inflicting pre-trial punishment upon him. Every person is presumed to be innocent unless duly tried and duly found guilty. Withholding of bail cannot be as a measure of punishment. The Respondents have not placed on record anything to show that the petitioner is habitual offender or that he has previously been either implicated or convicted of similar offences. It is not the case of the Respondents that any further recovery is to be effected from the Petitioner. The discretion regarding grant or refusal of bail cannot be exercised against the Petitioner. 

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