Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + SC Customs - 1989 (6) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1989 (6) TMI 227 - SC - CustomsWhether the discretion exercised by the High Court is legally sustainable? Whether the accused have a special right to remain on bail merely because they have been enlarged under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code? Held that - The offences alleged are of serious nature. I am of the opinion that the discretion exercised by the High Court does not call for any interference. The accused cannot claim any special right to remain on bail. If the investigation reveals that the accused has committed a serious offence and charge-sheet is filed, the bail granted under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) could be cancelled. The petitions are, therefore, rejected.
Issues:
1. Bail granted under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. High Court's order cancelling bail after charge-sheet filing. 3. Legality of High Court's discretion in cancelling bail. 4. Applicability of Section 437(5) and Section 439(2) for bail cancellation. Analysis: The petitioners were initially released on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Enquiry Magistrate. Subsequently, the High Court ordered their re-arrest by cancelling the bail after the charge-sheet was filed, leading to a challenge against the High Court's decision. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioners were arrested for offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and were granted bail after the charge-sheet was filed beyond the statutory period of 90 days from their arrest. The prosecution's attempt to have the bail cancelled before the Magistrate was unsuccessful, prompting them to approach the Delhi High Court under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. The High Court, relying on the decision in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, cancelled the bail order after considering the seriousness of the offence, the accused's alleged involvement in a heroin export conspiracy, and the gravity of the charges. The High Court emphasized that the nature of the offence and the accused's actions warranted the cancellation of bail, as per the legal provisions and precedents. The legal issue at hand was whether the discretion exercised by the High Court in cancelling the bail was legally sustainable. It was established that when an accused is granted bail, whether under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) or general provisions of the Cr. P.C., the bail can only be cancelled through specific provisions such as Section 437(5) or Section 439(2). The Court clarified that bail granted under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) is a release on default by the prosecution and not a result of the Court's discretion, and therefore, the accused cannot claim a special right to remain on bail if the investigation reveals serious offences. The Court further highlighted that the bail may be cancelled if there are sufficient grounds to believe that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence and it is necessary to arrest and commit them to custody. The discretion exercised by the High Court in this case was deemed legally sound, considering the serious nature of the alleged offences and the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the petitions challenging the High Court's decision to cancel bail were rejected, affirming the legality and validity of the bail cancellation.
|