9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. High Court's power to grant bail under Section 498, Criminal P.C. 2. Applicability of Section 497, Criminal P.C. in the context of granting bail. 3. Considerations for granting bail in a conspiracy case under Section 121-A, I.P.C. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. High Court's Power to Grant Bail under Section 498, Criminal P.C.: The High Court's power to grant bail is conferred by Section 498, Criminal P.C., which is "entirely unfettered by any conditions." The Court emphasized that the legislature has left the discretion of the Court entirely unfettered, trusting the High Court to act in the best interests of justice. The Court stated that it is unwise to attempt to lay down particular rules for the guidance of the High Court, as the variety of cases that may arise cannot be safely classified. The discretion must be exercised judiciously, considering all circumstances of the case. 2. Applicability of Section 497, Criminal P.C. in the Context of Granting Bail: The prosecution argued that the High Court's power under Section 498 should be exercised with regard to the provisions of Section 497, Criminal P.C. The Court acknowledged that while Section 497 applies to cases of non-bailable offences, the High Court's discretion under Section 498 is not limited by the conditions of Section 497. The Court noted that the principle deduced from Sections 496 and 497 is that the grant of bail should be the rule and refusal the exception. The Court highlighted that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty and should have the freedom to look after their case effectively. 3. Considerations for Granting Bail in a Conspiracy Case under Section 121-A, I.P.C.: The applicants were charged with conspiring to deprive the King-Emperor of His sovereignty of British India under Section 121-A, I.P.C. The prosecution conceded that the accused had not committed any overt illegal act in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy. The Court noted that the conspiracy seemed to have been nipped in the bud by the police, and the case appeared to be of a milder character. The Court found no suggestion that the applicants were dangerous criminals or that they would intimidate or tamper with prosecution witnesses. Considering the voluminous evidence and the prolonged trial, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants. Separate Judgments Delivered by Judges: Mukerji, J.: Mukerji, J. emphasized the unfettered discretion of the High Court under Section 498, Criminal P.C. and the principle that granting bail should be the rule. He highlighted the presumption of innocence and the need for the accused to have the freedom to prepare their defense. He concluded that the applicants should be granted bail, noting that the case did not involve dangerous criminals or acts of violence. Boys, J.: Boys, J. reiterated the unfettered discretion of the High Court under Section 498, Criminal P.C. and the necessity of exercising this discretion judiciously. He considered various factors, including the nature and gravity of the charge, the severity of potential punishment, the risk of the applicant absconding, and the need for the applicant to prepare their defense. Boys, J. concluded that the applicant should be released on bail, subject to conditions to ensure their attendance at the trial and prevent public agitation. Order: The Court directed that the applicants be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the District Magistrate, with conditions to ensure they do not participate in public demonstrations or contribute to the public press while out on bail. The Court clarified that granting bail did not imply approval of any adjournment for searching for witnesses at this stage.
|
