SC: Conduct of Accused before grant of bail can't be cited for seeking Cancellation of Bail under Sec. 439(2) CrPC,

 

Noting that granting bail is not parrallel to running a disciplinary inquiry, Supreme Court has observed that cancellation of bail cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail.

The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia in this view allowed appeal against High Court order wherein it suo-moto cancelled the bail granted to the appellant on the ground that the Trial Court had not adverted to a relevant fact that the accused was absconding and was arrested only later.

 

 The Court remarked that it was upsetting that High Court invoked its vested powers for this.

 "It had not been the case of the prosecution that the appellant had misused the liberty or had comported herself in any manner in violation of the conditions imposed on her. We are impelled to observe that power of cancellation of bail should be exercised with extreme care and circumspection; and such cancellation cannot be ordered merely for any perceived indiscipline on the part of the accused before granting bail. In other words, the powers of cancellation of bail cannot be approached as if of disciplinary proceedings against the accused and in fact, in a case where bail has already been granted, its upsetting under Section 439(2) CrPC is envisaged only in such cases where the liberty of the accused is going to be counteracting the requirements of a proper trial of the criminal case. In the matter of the present nature, in our view, over-expansion of the issue was not required only for one reason that a particular factor was not stated by the Trial Court in its order granting bail."

 The appellant is one of the accused persons in one case under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

 

The accusations have been that the deceased, who was married to the son of the appellant, was being subjected to physical and mental tortures for demand of dowry after the marriage and ultimately she died by hanging under unusual circumstances; and a suicide note in the handwriting of the deceased was found, implicating her husband and in-laws, including the present appellant–the mother-in-law.

In the impugned order, a submission was made before the High Court on behalf of the appellant that all the members of the family were either on run or were in jail and it was left to the appellant to look after the minor child of the deceased and, therefore, she surrendered only after her husband was released, when she could hand over the child to him. The High Court was not impressed with this submission for the reason that no such fact was mentioned in the application seeking bail, as filed before the Sessions Court.

 The High Court, in the impugned order, also took note of the fact that its directions for ensuring service of notice were not adequately complied with and then, even the requisite explanation was not forthcoming and hence, the Director General of Police was required to file his affidavit of explanation. The High Court reproduced all the contents of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police as regards the steps taken in the matter and other corrective steps being taken on the administrative side.

 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure