2009 (8) TMI 1268 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted by the Sessions Judge.
2. Legality of granting pre-arrest bail for an indefinite period.

Summary:

Issue 1: Cancellation of Pre-Arrest Bail
- The petitioner, the mother of the victim girl, filed a Criminal Misc. Application u/s 439(2) of the CrPC, seeking cancellation of the pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent No. 1-accused by the Sessions Judge, Goalpara.
- The petitioner lodged an Ejahar on 06.01.2008, alleging that her minor daughter was kidnapped by the respondent No. 1-accused, who also took cash and gold ornaments.
- The Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to the respondent No. 1-accused on 02.01.2009, which the petitioner sought to cancel.

Issue 2: Legality of Granting Pre-Arrest Bail for an Indefinite Period
- The court discussed the power u/s 439(2) CrPC for cancellation of bail and emphasized that the parameters for granting and canceling bail are different.
- The court highlighted that the bail should be granted based on the nature of the accusation, severity of punishment, and reasonable apprehension of tampering with evidence.
- The court cited several Apex Court judgments, including Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration), which clarified the special powers of the High Court or Court of Sessions regarding bail.
- The court noted that the Sessions Judge's order granting pre-arrest bail for an indefinite period was ex facie illegal, as anticipatory bail should be of limited duration.
- The court referred to the Apex Court's decisions in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and K.L. Verma vs. State and Anr., which held that anticipatory bail must be of limited duration and the regular court should deal with the bail application after the investigation progresses.
- The court concluded that the impugned order dated 02.01.2009 was in absolute infraction of the Apex Court's ratio and set aside the order to the extent of granting pre-arrest bail for an indefinite period.
- The respondent No. 1-accused was directed to approach the concerned court for regular bail within one month, and the concerned court was instructed to dispose of the bail application within 15 days of receipt.

Conclusion:
- The impugned order dated 02.01.2009 granting pre-arrest bail for an indefinite period was quashed.
- The respondent No. 1-accused was directed to assist the investigation and apply for regular bail within the stipulated time.