9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the cancellation of bail granted to the appellants by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court. The primary issue is the lack of reasons provided for canceling the bail. Another issue is the consideration of circumstances warranting the cancellation of bail, especially when a person interferes with the course of justice or tampers with evidence or witnesses. Cancellation of Bail: The appellants challenged the order canceling the bail granted to them, arguing that no reasons were given for the cancellation. The respondent No.1-complainant, however, submitted that the cancellation was justified despite the lack of elaboration in the order. The High Court had granted provisional bail to the appellants and two others, but later directed the cancellation of bail for the appellants due to an incident on 10.10.2006. The High Court failed to provide reasons for canceling the bail, as highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants. Legal Considerations for Bail and Cancellation: The judgment refers to the legal principles outlined in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra regarding the cancellation of bail. It emphasizes that bail can be canceled if the accused misuses their liberty, interferes with the investigation, tampers with evidence or witnesses, threatens witnesses, or engages in activities hindering the investigation. The judgment underscores that cancellation of bail is a serious matter as it impacts an individual's liberty and should not be taken lightly. Precedents and Conditions for Bail: The judgment cites the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, highlighting the need for courts to provide reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offense cases. The conditions under Section 437(1)(i) are crucial for granting bail even under Section 439 of the Code. The judgment also emphasizes that irrelevant materials should not influence bail decisions and that the court must consider relevant factors before granting bail. Review and Remittance: The judgment notes that the High Court failed to provide reasons for canceling the bail, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The matter is remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision on the application filed. It clarifies that no opinion on the case's merits has been expressed. The appeal is allowed to the extent of setting aside the order for cancellation of bail. This summary provides a detailed overview of the legal judgment, focusing on the issues involved, the reasons for canceling bail, legal considerations, precedents, and the review process leading to the remittance of the matter to the High Court for a fresh decision.
|
