9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the interim bail granted to the opposite party No. 1 by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, citing lack of medical documents supporting the health condition claim. The petitioner argued that the Magistrate's decision was erroneous and lacked proper reasoning. 2. The petitioner referred to a Supreme Court decision and contended that the Magistrate's order was based on ignoring materials and lacked proper reasons, thus being contrary to legal principles. The petitioner emphasized the need for the Public Prosecutor's submission before granting bail. 3. The opposite party No. 1's counsel defended the bail order, stating there was no justification for detention based on the available evidence. The counsel argued against cancellation based on legal sanctity and the absence of tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses. 4. The opposite party No. 1's counsel highlighted the petitioner's illness and ongoing treatment to support the bail decision. Referring to legal precedents, the counsel argued against canceling bail, emphasizing the importance of liberty and lack of grounds for interference. 5. The Court reviewed affidavits exchanged between the parties and the Case Diary presented by the Junior Government Advocate, noting the medical treatment undergone by the opposite party No. 1. 6. The Court deliberated on its power under Section 439(2) to cancel bail, emphasizing the need for cogent circumstances and the impact on the investigation or trial process. The Court acknowledged the relevance of the Puran case decision in such matters. 7. The Court examined whether the bail order was vitiated by a patent error or passed without due consideration of relevant materials, particularly medical documents supporting the health condition claim. 8. Despite the Magistrate's failure to peruse medical papers, the Court found no impropriety in the bail decision based on the sustained treatment history and medical records of the opposite party No. 1. 9. The Court analyzed the Case Diary and medical evidence, concluding that there was no justification for interfering with the bail order, as the Investigating Agency's collected materials did not warrant such action. 10. After careful consideration of the facts and circumstances, the Court rejected the prayer for canceling the interim bail and vacated the previous interim order, returning the Case Diary.
|
