P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Rehmat Ali Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh - (High Court of Himachal Pradesh) (08 Mar 2019)

Gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by Court while exercising its discretion

MANU/HP/0164/2019

Criminal

Bail Petitioner has approached present Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), praying therein for grant of regular bail in connection with FIR under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and 181 of Motor Vehicles Act, registered at Police station.

Guilt of the bail Petitioner is yet to be proved in accordance with law by leading cogent and convincing evidence and as such, freedom of the bail Petitioner cannot be curtailed for an indefinite period. It is also not in dispute that bail Petitioner is a first offender and local resident of the area, who shall always remain available for investigation as well as trial as and when required by the Investigating Agency.

Careful perusal of Section 37 of the Act, which prohibits the grant of bail to the person found carrying commercial quantity of contraband suggests that, person accused of offence punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27-A cannot be ordered to be released on bail unless public prosecutrix is given opportunity to oppose the application, if any, made for his release on bail. In the case at hand, neither commercial quantity of contraband, came to be recovered from the conscious possession of the present bail Petitioner or his car nor case, came to be registered against him under Sections 24 or 27-A of the Act and as such, rigors of section 37 are not attracted in the present case.

By now it is well settled that gravity alone cannot be decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are required to be balanced by the court while exercising its discretion. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative.

Normal rule is of bail and not jail. Court has to keep in mind nature of accusations, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused involved in that crime.

In facts and circumstances of cases as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, Petitioner has carved out a case for grant of bail, accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail in aforesaid FIR, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000 with one local surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court, with conditions as stipulated.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   DISCRETION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved