NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

Mumtaz vs. State(Nct Of Delhi) & Anr. - (High Court of Delhi) (28 Dec 2022)

Mere pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot itself be the basis for refusal of bail

MANU/DE/5424/2022

Criminal

The present application is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking regular bail in FIR, filed under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station.

The applicant is in custody since 28th August, 2022. The co- accused who were found to be in possession of the weapons have already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. The alleged arms have already been recovered and no further recovery is allegedly left to be made at the instance of the applicant. The allegations, whether the accused was in custody of the alleged weapons or whether they were planted by the Police would be tested during the trial.

The applicant, though, was found to be involved in 23 other cases but has either been discharged, acquitted or granted bail. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prabhakar Tewari v. State of U.P., had observed that mere pendency of several criminal cases against the accused cannot itself be the basis for refusal of bail. The same can be a factor, however, cannot a sole basis for refusal of prayer of bail. Admittedly, even though charge-sheet is filed, the investigation, as per the State, is likely to take more time before any trial can start. It is not alleged that the applicant has tried to jump the bail in any of the cases where he has been granted bail earlier by the Courts.

The object of bail is not punitive but to secure the presence of accused during the trial. It has also not been alleged that incarceration of the applicant is required in order to prevent the applicant from tampering with evidence or to prevent him from extending any inducement or threat to any of the witnesses.

In view of the facts and circumstances in mind and the fact that the trial is likely to take some time, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration and the applicant has made out a case for grant of regular bail. The applicant is directed to be released on bail. Application allowed.

Tags : BAIL   GRANT   ELIGIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved