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

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more