9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1813X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts impugned order dated 19.08.2013 may be cancelled, as the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City had committed a grave error by granting bail to the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that twice bail application of Gopal, accused-respondent No.3, herein was rejected by the High Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that accused - Gopal had earlier approached this Court, along with one Bharat Lal, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1874/2013 and a Single Bench of this Court on 20.02.2013 had declined his bail. Thereafter, Gopal had approached this Court by filing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Appl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he grounds for grant of bail and grounds for cancellation are entirely different. In the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1993 SC 1, where bail was granted under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has held that only on the following grounds bail can be cancelled. "Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439 (1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Subsection (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case [AIR 1987 SC 149] the grounds for cancellation under Sections 437 (5) and 439 (2) ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner while praying for cancellation of bail to the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4, has lost sight of the one vital aspect that grant of bail on merit and grant bail because of breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India are entirely in different realm. It has been held by the Apex Court on numerous occasion that right speedy trial vests in the accused, therefore, where the Court is not able to conclude the trial at the earliest, accused cannot be kept behind the bars for a indefinite period. The criminal jurisprudence of this country recognize maxim "bail is a rule, jail is an exception". In the present case, after the respondent Nos.2 to 4 have undergone sufficient period, they filed an application before the Court of Magis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is acquitted, nobody will be able to compensate the loss caused to the accused. Furthermore, there are cases where the sentences are awarded are less than one-year or one and half year and there are also cases where the accused may be released on probation. Thus, where the accused has undergone 7/8 months and out of twenty-five witness cited, only one-witness has been examined, the Court below was very well justified to grant bail to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. It is to be appreciated that the Court below has not granted bail on merit, therefore, has not observed anything contrary to the order passed by the High Court. The Court below had only taken into consideration the period of custody already undergone by the accused and slow length ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
