NCLAT: Unenforced Equitable Mortgage is Corporate Debtor’s Asset, Not to Be Treated as Margin Money  ||  NCLT Approves Hindustan Unilever’s Ice Cream Business Demerger into Kwality Wall’s  ||  Supreme Court: Bar Councils Cannot Charge Over Rs 750 for Enrollment or Withhold Applicants’ Docs  ||  SC Cancels POCSO Conviction, Observing Crime Resulted from Love, Not Lust, After Marriage  ||  Supreme Court: Advocates Can be Summoned Only under S.132 BSA Exceptions with Prior Officer Approval  ||  Allahabad HC: Juvenile Conviction Cannot be Treated as Disqualification for Government Jobs  ||  Delhi HC: DV Act Rights of Daughter-in-Law Cannot Deny In-Laws’ Right to Reside in Home  ||  Delhi HC: Waitlist Panel Cannot Be Segregated, Vacancies Must Be Filled From Valid Waitlist  ||  Delhi HC: Matrimonial FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Couple’s Settlement Agreement is Not Executed  ||  Delhi HC Bars All India Carrom Federation from Using “India” or “Indian” in its Name    

State of Kerala Vs. Prabha C. Sekhar and Ors. - (High Court of Kerala) (14 May 2019)

Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering supervening circumstances

MANU/KE/1593/2019

Criminal

In present case, the 1st Respondent herein is a teacher. Alleging that she was involved in Crime registered under Sections 454 and 381 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a report was submitted before the learned Magistrate. She approached the learned Sessions Judge with a petition seeking anticipatory bail. The same was allowed by the Court below on stringent conditions by order. The instant petition is filed by the State with a prayer to quash the above order.

The judicial discretion was correctly exercised by the Court below. It was on relevant considerations that, the 1st Respondent was granted an order of pre-arrest bail by the court below. The 1st Respondent has been co-operating with the investigation from the registration of the crime in the year 2014. The prosecution has no case that the 1st Respondent herein had attempted to interfere with the investigation or thwart the course of justice.

In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Supreme Court had occasion to observe that, there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail and appeal against the order granting bail. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. It was held that, the grounds for cancellation of bail are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concessions granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court on the basis of the materials placed on record of the possibility of the accused absconding is another reason justifying the cancellation of bail.

Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have been available or not. The 1st Respondent, being a lady and also a teacher, was rightly extended the benefit of pre-arrest bail by the court below. This petition will stand dismissed.

Relevant : Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [MANU/SC/0085/2018]

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved