Legal Reference Library

The Karnataka High Court in D. GUNDAPPA vs State of Karnataka has observed that mere non-production of the accused from time to time and failure of the Magistrate to pass express order remanding the accused to custody do not vitiate the proceedings, nor does it confer a right on the accused to seek for his release on bail. The Bench comprising Justice H.G. Ramesh And Justice John Michael Cunha however clarified that the production of the accused before the Magistrate as mandated in section 167(2)(b) and section 209 CrPC is a rule and non-production of the accused is only an exception and it is only when the physical production of the accused is not possible on account of his hospitalization or such other unavoidable reasons, the Magistrate cannot refuse to extend the remand merely on ground of non-production of the accused. In such event, it is incumbent on the Investigating Officer to make necessary requisition supported by genuine documents for the satisfaction of the learned Mag...

When the seriousness of the offence is such, the mere fact that he was in jail for however long time should not be the concern of the Courts, the Supreme Court  in The State Of Bihar vs Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai has said, while holding that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground that accused was in custody for a long time. A bench comprising Justice NV Ramana and Justice Prafulla C Pant set aside a Patna High Court order, which had granted bail to Bihar toppers’ scam accused Amit Kumar @ Bacha Rai. In a brief order, the high court, while granting bail, relied on the fact that the accused has already been in custody for a long time.

In Sagayam @ Devasagayam vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Chennai, in a significant judgment on bail jurisprudence, the Madras High Court has recently held that demanding production of property documents or RC book or any other document to show proof of property, either movable or immovable, with respect to the bail bond or surety bond amount, is against Article 21 of Constitution of India. Justice P Devadass also held that the person, who is offering surety, must have acceptable residential proof. “He may be a tenant, licensee. A beggar can also stand as surety, provided he should have some acceptable residential proof. A surety should have a genuine address. He may be asked to produce residential proof. He should not be a vagabond. He should establish his identity. A poor man can be a voter. Likewise, a poor man can be a surety. A surety can be a person without having own house. He can be a tenant. Even a person living in a platform, living in a slum having an acceptab...

While deciding in Hussain vs Union of India, the division bench of Supreme Court issued the following directions: (i) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week; (ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within two years; (iii) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases, which are five years old, by the end of the year; (iv) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded, such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the trial courts concerned from time to time; (v) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports. emphasis added) (vi) The high courts are requested to ensure that bail applications ...

The Supreme Court in State of Telangana vs. Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Ors. has held that a high court, while refusing to exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere in an application for quashment of the investigation, cannot restrain the investigating agencies from arresting the accused during the course of investigation. Setting aside such a high court order, terming it “absolutely inconceivable and unthinkable”, the bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra observed that it has come to the notice of the court that high courts, while dismissing an application under Section 482 CrPC, issue directions that on surrendering before the trial judge/magistrate concerned, the accused shall be enlarged on on bail. Such directions do not come within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution of India nor Section 482 CrPC nor Section 438 CrPC and are not acceptable, the bench held. The high court in the instant case had directed the police not to...

Making drastic observations, Bombay High Court has granted bail to three men accused of murdering Shaikh Mohsin. The single bench of Justice Mridula Bhatkar granted bail to the three accused observing – “The fault of the deceased was only that he belonged to another religion. I consider this factor in favour of the applicants/accused. Moreover, the applicants/accused do not have criminal record and it appears that in the name of the religion, they were provoked and have committed the murder.” Justice Bhatkar was hearing the bail applications filed by Vijay Gambhire, Ranjeet Yadav and Ajay Lage. These three have been booked for offences punishable under 302, 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 153 A of the Indian Penal Code. Their bail was was rejected by a sessions court in Pune. Shri Vijay Rajendra Gambhire … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent with BAIL APPLICATION NO.2160 OF 2016 Shri Ganesh @ Ranjeet Shankar Yadav … Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respo...

The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday refused to grant anticipatory bail to M.P. Venkatakrishnan, Assistant Manager (Legal) of HDFC Bank in Tirunelveli district, in two cases registered against him for defrauding the bank to the tune of several lakh of rupees and cancelled the advance bail granted by the Tirunelveli Principal Sessions Court in the third case. Justice V.M. Velumani dismissed the two anticipatory bail applications filed by the lawyer and allowed a cancellation of advance bail application moved by the bank on the ground that the accused had not even complied with the condition laid down by the Sessions Court on April 28 to report before the Inspector of Tirunelveli City Crime Branch (CCB) every day for a month. “Allegations against the petitioner are that he is the mastermind in hatching the plan to defraud the bank. He actively participated in forgery and stealthily removed all the loan documents by using the password to which only authorised employees had acce...

Reviving a bail order cancelled by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, the bench of P. Devadass J. held that, in matters of cancellation of a bail order due to default in complying with the bail conditions, opportunity must be given to the accused persons to present their case. It was held that the cancellation of a bail order cannot be done mechanically as it involves withdrawal of the liberty that has already given to the accused; hence observance of principles of natural justice is a must. In the present case the issue was that the petitioners (husband and wife) had been granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC and certain conditions were imposed which included regular appearance before the police at a scheduled time. Due to compliance of the same, the bail conditions with respect to the wife were relaxed. However, the police subsequently filed a petition for cancellation of the bail order on the grounds that the petitioners have not obeyed the bail con...

Delhi High Court has held in State v Hargyan that acceptance of an incomplete charge sheet and denying statutory bail (167(2) CrPC] to the accused amounted to apparent abuse of process of Law. The accused was alleged of committing misappropriation of funds in ATM accounts, wherein he was acting as custodian. The police filed final report before the magistrate court. The court below, returning the charge sheet, directed further investigation into certain aspects .The accused applied for statutory bail before the magistrate court which was rejected.His revision before the sessions judge was allowed, granting statutory bail. Aggrieved by the same,state filed the above criminal revision petition. Dismissing the petition, Justice P.S .Teji, observed:-“Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. precludes the concerned Magistrate to have the custody of the detenue beyond 60 days until he receives the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C. to adjudicate upon the same.” The court noted that in the instant case, ...

The Supreme Court of India in R.K. Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Assam, AIR 1998 SC 530 : 1997 (6) Suppl.SCR 153 : (1998) 1 SCC 474 : 1997 (7) SCALE 442 : JT 1997 (9) SC 709 : 1998 (2) ALD (Cri) 113 : 1998 (1) ALT (Cri) 107 : [1998] 92 Comp Cas 14 (SC) : 1998 CriLJ 848 : 1997 (4) Crimes 388 (SC) held that the question of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure not applicable if the offence is bailable. A bench comprising of M.K. Mukharji and K.T. Thomas, JJ. observed that the question of granting anticipatory bail does not arise since offence under S. 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is bailable. # Anticipatory Bail Officers of a Company met some leaders of an unlawful association including United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), negotiated with them in connection with their various demands including ransom demands. Case Diary revealed that the Company had funded the said unlawful association and the Officers had a role to ...

Bombay High Court has come down heavily on police officers for illegally detaining two doctors for more than two weeks in connection with a crime which was bailable. Division Bench comprising of Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai directed the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the matter of illegal detention and to take disciplinary action against the erring police officers. Costs of Rs. 50,000 was also directed to be paid to the doctors, which is to be borne by the errant police officers themselves. In this case, allegation against these doctors, who were brothers of the main accused, was that they cheated the complainant by giving false promise of marriage and thereby calling it off. The main accused was also charged with Section 376 IPC.  All of them were arrested on 7th June 2015 and despite directions of the High Court to consider their bail applications expeditiously, the Sessions Court failed to do so. They were finally released on 24th June 2015 following direc...

It is well settled that at pre-conviction stage, there is presumption of innocence. The object of keeping a person in custody is to ensure his availability to face the trial and to receive the sentence that may be passed. The detention is not supposed to be punitive or preventive. Seriousness of the allegation or the availability of material in support thereof are not the only considerations for declining bail.  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2015 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO.7506 OF 2014) DR. VINOD BHANDARI ...APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF M.P. .RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant. 3. M.P. Vyavsay...