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    

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

MANU/SC/0878/2020

Narcotics

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.

Tags : BAIL   CANCELLATION   LEGALITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved