2009 (7) TMI 163 - HC - Customs

Cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated 18-12-2008 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeked Held that - Merely because there is a serious offence against the respondent, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail which has been granted by the ACMM concerned after taking into consideration all the facts of the case as well as the release of one of the co-accused. The respondent has been released on bail after he remained in custody for a period of 15 months. Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered on the merits of the case. No grounds which are required to have been established for the purpose of seeking cancellation of bail have been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the circumstances when bail can be recalled. Petition dismissed.

Summary

The High Court of Delhi issued an order in 2009 to address a petition filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, seeking the cancellation of bail granted to a respondent by the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner argued that the respondent was connected to smuggling fake currency notes and had committed offenses under the Customs Act. The petitioner also claimed that the Trial Court overlooked significant evidence against the respondent, including statements made by the respondent and other co-accused. The petitioner contended that the Sessions Court's dismissal of bail for a co-accused should have precluded the Trial Court from granting bail to the respondent. The respondent opposed the petition, arguing that no grounds existed for bail cancellation and that the Trial Court had considered all relevant factors. The respondent had been in custody for over 15 months and had not abused bail conditions. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the seriousness of the offense alone was insufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The Court outlined conditions necessary for bail cancellation, which were not met in this case. The judgment emphasized that the Trial Court had applied its mind while granting bail and that the dismissal of the petition did not affect the case's merits before the trial court.