9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (11) TMI 803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The order is a detailed one setting out the facts and circumstances of the case, the previous history, and antecedents of the accused-applicant. The order also takes note of an apprehension expressed on behalf of the State that the release of the respondent No. 1 on bail may adversely influence the investigation and witnesses may be adversely influenced or intimidated. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of bail at the hands of the Sessions Court, the respondent No. 1 moved the High Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. By order dated 08.11.2001, the High Court has allowed the prayer of the respondent No. 1 to be enlarged on bail. The order is a brief one and the only reason assigned for releasing the respondent No. 1 on bail is - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onment. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted by inviting attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. that a person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence shall not be released on bail if he had been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 7 years or more, unless special reasons for enlarging the accused on bail are available and recorded in writing. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the power of Sessions Court and High Court to enlarge the accused on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are very wide and are not fettered by the provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, it ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the contrary set out in the order of the Sessions Court. Independently of the order of rejection passed by the Sessions Court, the High Court may grant bail to an accused person, yet it would be sound exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of High Court if the order of the High Court reflects that the High Court had in mind the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for refusing bail. The impugned order of the High Court suffers from this infirmity. 9. The impugned order of the High Court granting bail to the accused respondent No. 1 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The respondent No. 1 shall forthwith surrender to custody. However, we clarify that the right of the accused respondent No. 1 to apply and seek bail afresh is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
