Del. HC: Liquidated Damages Mentioned in Agreement Can’t be Awarded in Absence of Proof of Loss  ||  MP HC: S.375 Marital Sex Exemption Also Provides Exemption Under Section 377 of IPC  ||  SC: SARFAESI Doesn’t Give Any License to Bank Officers to Act Against the Scheme of Law  ||  All. HC: Court Can’t Mechanically Reject Application for Waiving Off Cooling Period u/s 13B of HMA  ||  Kar. HC: Acquittal Order Can’t be Put in Challenge by Stranger to the Case  ||  Kar. HC: Alternate Remedy Can’t be Used as China Wall Against Invocation of Writ Jurisdiction  ||  Bom. HC Upholds Constitutional Validity of Goa’s Green Cess Act  ||  Del. HC: Not Court’s Business to Demonstrate Morality of an Act unless it has Caused Harm  ||  Del. HC: Cost Accountants and Chartered Accountants Not Similarly Placed Under Law  ||  SC: No Party Ought to be Vexed Twice in a Litigation for One and the Same Cause    

Venkatesan Balasubramaniyan vs. The Intelligence Officer,D.R.I. Bangalore - (Supreme Court) (20 Nov 2020)

Default bail granted erroneously can be cancelled by high court under Section 439(2) of Cr.PC



Present appeals have been filed against the common judgment of the High Court in Criminal Petition filed by the Respondent before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the petition filed by Respondent under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) has been allowed cancelling the bail granted to the Appellants by Metropolitan Sessions Judge.

The Appellants’ car by which they were travelling from Omerga to Hyderabad was intercepted by the D.R.I. officials and from the possession of the Appellants 45.874 Kgs of narcotic substance was recovered. Complaint under Section 36A(1)(d) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for offences under Section 8(c) punishable under Section 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28 and 29 read with Section 38 of the NDPS Act has been filed by Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. in Omerga Court.

It is true that, the bail granted under Section 167(2) of CrPC could have been cancelled under Section 439(2) of CrPC. The provisions of Section 439(2) CrPC specifically empower the High Court or the Court of Session to cancel such bail.

It is true that two offences, one at Hyderabad being at the instance of D.R.I., Hyderabad was registered and another case by the D.R.I., Bangalore. A combined complaint taking care of both the offences was filed before the Special Court, Omerga wherein offences committed by the accused were also inquired and dealt with. There is ample material in the complaint that, the transportation of narcotic substance started from Omerga, Maharashtra and was being allegedly to be taken to Chennai and intercepted at Hyderabad. The complaint, which has been brought on the record gives the detailed facts including the journey and the interception of Appellants at Hyderabad. The combined complaint having been filed on 6th July, 2018, i.e., well within 180 days, the High Court did not commit any error in cancelling the default bail granted to the Appellants.

There is no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment of the High Court. Regular bail application under Section 439 of CrPC was filed before the Omerga Court by the Appellants, which was withdrawn on 25th September, 2018, present Court is of the view that, it is open for the Appellants to file regular bail application before Omerga Court under Section 439 of CrPC afresh. Appeals dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved