NCLAT: Can’t Set Aside Liquidation Order u/s 33 IBC When 3rd Party has Taken Possession of Property  ||  NCLAT: Unless Amendment Application Filed, Authority Can’t Suo Motu Amend Date of Default  ||  Delhi HC Directs Removal of 'Kindpan' Trademark in Petition Filed by ‘Mankind’  ||  J&K HC: Limitation for Challenging Award Starts after Signed Copy is Received by Party  ||  Delhi HC: ‘High Speed’ Not Sufficient to Conclude Driver Acted in Rash and Negligent Manner  ||  Allahabad HC: Huge Difference between Executing a Particular Document and Being a Witness  ||  Kerala HC: Can’t Consider Co-Opted Members of Bar Council as Separate Class from Elected Members  ||  J&K HC: Govt. Failing to Communicate Rejection of Detenue’s Representation in Time Vitiates Order  ||  SC: Electricity Act Empowers State Commissions to Regulate Open Access Within their Respective States  ||  SC: Limitation Begins from Date of Registration of Sale Deed that Constitutes Constructive Notice    

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