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

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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