Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists  ||  Kerala High Court: Disability Pension is Payable to Voluntary Dischargee For Service-Related Illness  ||  Calcutta High Court: Partition Decree is Executable Only After Stamp Duty Payment  ||  Calcutta HC: Contempt Court Cannot Grant New Relief Beyond Original Order Once Compliance is Met  ||  Kerala High Court: Intentional Judicial Decisions Cannot be Altered as Clerical Errors under CPC  ||  Supreme Court: Delay In Filing Appeals under Section 74 of 2013 Land Acquisition Act is Condonable  ||  SC: Statutory Authorities may Intervene When Housing Societies Delay Membership Decisions  ||  SC: Quasi-Judicial Authorities Cannot Exercise Review Powers Unless Expressly Granted By Statute  ||  SC: Special Court Cannot Order Confiscation While Appeal Against Attachment Confirmation is Pending  ||  SC: Photocopies are Not Evidence Unless Conditions for Leading Secondary Evidence are Proved    

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