Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Judicature at Madras: A Division Bench comprising of Rajiv Shakdher, J. and N. Sathish Kumar, J. addressed a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the petitioner seeked the setting aside of the detention order which confined him to the Central Prison and following the quashment, seeked the court to free the petitioner.

The counsel for the respondent had pointed out that no charge-sheet had been filed with regards to the crime that was allegedly committed by the petitioner. Thus the court decided to take up the main petition for hearing. The court perused the detention order of the petitioner and noticed that the petitioner had 2 cases registered against him. The Court also observed that the detenu had not filed any bail application in the second case till the date of passing of the impugned detention order. Although, the detaining officer took into account the fact that bail was granted to the petitioner for the other case, and hence, concluded that there stood a great possibility for the petitioner to be granted bail for the present case as well.

The Court held that the order couldn’t be sustained since despite the detenu having been arrested on 14/2/2017 and the order having been given on 2/5/2017 followed by a notice on 23/6/2017, no counter affidavit had been filed. No explanation had been provided for the enormous delay. Along with that, despite the order having been passed on the said date, the detenu had not applied for bail. The Court thought that the detaining officer’s reasoning was flawed as he thought that bail should be granted since the detenu was granted bail for the previous crime. [Kuppan @ Sathishkumar v. Secretary to Government, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 11530, dated 15.12.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of RF Nariman and SK Kaul, JJ declared Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, insofar as it imposes two conditions for grant of bail where an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than 3 years under Part A of the Schedule to the Act is involved, to be unconstitutional as it violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Conditions that the Court held to be unconstitutional are:

  • Public Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose any application for release on bail;
  • The Court must be satisfied, where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Calling Section 45 of PMLA Act a drastic provision, the Bench said the provision

“turns on its head the presumption of innocence which is fundamental to a person accused of any offence. Before application of a section which makes drastic inroads into the fundamental right of personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India, we must be doubly sure that such provision furthers a compelling State interest for tackling serious crime. Absent any such compelling State interest, the indiscriminate application of the provisions of Section 45 will certainly violate Article 21 of the Constitution.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the petitioners, argued before the Court that Clauses 43 and 44 of the 1999 Bill, which correspond to Sections 44 and 45 of the present Act, were very differently worded and dealt only with offences under the 2002 Act. He said that the twin conditions laid down as additional conditions for grant of bail were, at this stage, only qua offences under the 2002 Act. However, when Parliament enacted the 2002 Act, this scheme was completely changed in that Section 45 of the Act now spoke only of the predicate/scheduled offence and not the offence under the 2002 Act.

Attorney General AK Venugopal, on the other hand, argued that the twin conditions contained in Section 45 are only in furtherance of the object of unearthing black money and that the Court should, therefore, be very slow to set at liberty persons who are alleged offenders of the cancer of money laundering.

Taking note of the Para 18 of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21, that laid down the conditions for grant of bail, the Court held that it is obvious that the twin conditions set down in Section 45 are a much higher threshold bar than any of the conditions laid down in para 18 of the said judgment. In fact, the presumption of innocence, which is attached to any person being prosecuted of an offence, is inverted by the conditions specified in Section 45, whereas for grant of ordinary bail the presumption of innocence attaches, after which the various factors set out in paragraph 18 of the judgment are to be looked at.

The Court further noted:

“a classification based on sentence of imprisonment of more than three years of an offence contained in Part A of the Schedule, which is a predicate offence, would have no rational relation to the object of attaching and bringing back into the economy large amounts by way of proceeds of crime. When it comes to Section 45, it is clear that a classification based on sentencing qua a scheduled offence would have no rational relation with the grant of bail for the offence of money laundering and hence, the twin conditions need to be annulled on the basis of the equal protection clause.”

The Court, hence, directed that all the matters that were placed before it, in which bail has been denied, because of the presence of the twin conditions contained in Section 45, will now go back to the respective Courts which denied bail and considering that persons are languishing in jail and that personal liberty is involved, all these matters are to be taken up at the earliest by the respective Courts for fresh decision. [Nikesh Tarachand Shah v. Union of India,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1355, decided on 23.11.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While deciding a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Budihal R.B., J. rejected to grant bail to the petitioner in light of the investigation still pending in the case.

The petitioner was charged under Section 376(C) IPC along with Sections 6 and 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The petitioner was a head master of a government school and he was alleged to have physically molested as many as seven girl students. On the basis of the complaint filed by these victim girl students, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under the Sections as mentioned above.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the acts mentioned in the complaint were alleged to be done three years prior to filing of the complaint. Also the petitioner was on the verge of retirement and he was falsely implicated in the case. He prayed that the petitioner may be granted bail. Learned High Court Government Pleader opposed the bail petition.

The High Court perused the record as well as the grounds urged in the bail petition. The Court found that as many as seven girl students gave statement against the petitioner to the police as well as before the JMFC under Section 164 CrPC. It was also found that the matter was still under investigation and the final investigation report was yet to be filed. The Court was of the opinion that this was not a fit case to exercise discretion in favor of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed without granting bail to the petitioner. [Shrinivasa Joshi v. State of Karnataka, Crl. Petition No. 8176 of 2017, order dated 10.11.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

High Court of Himachal Pradesh: While deciding a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. enlarged the petitioner on bail observing that it was a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner to bail was required to be exercised in his favour.

The petitioner was charged under Section 376 IPC. He was accused of sexually assaulting the prosecutrix. It was alleged that the petitioner indulged in sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her. However, now the petitioner was denying to marry her and as such the prosecutrix filed the complaint which resulted in the criminal case being registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he was innocent and he was neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He further argued that the prosecutrix was four years elder to the petitioner. The petitioner was just 19 years of age when the offence was alleged to have committed. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only case was that the petitioner was seen by the prosecutrix chatting with another girl on Facebook and this was the reason that she lodged the FIR against the petitioner.

The High Court perused the whole record and the rival contentions of the parties and was of the view that the petitioner was in custody for over two years and he could not be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period before being adjudicated guilty. Therefore, keeping in view the material which came on record and without discussing the same at the instant stage, the Court found that it was a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail was required to be exercised in his favor. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail, subject to the conditions imposed. [Ankush alias Shivam v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2017 SCC OnLine HP 1596, order dated 7.11.2017]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Refusing to release Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Chandra, involved in the Unitech Flats controversy as alleged by the home-buyers, the 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr CY Chandrachud, JJ held that the petitioners will be granted bail only if they deposit a sum of Rs.750 crores in the Registry of this Court by the end of this year which shall be kept in an interest earning fixed deposit.

Amicus curiae Pawan Shree Agrawal submitted before the Court that he has got the information from the home buyers that some of them intend to have flats and some of them want the amount refunded and that the amount that is computed for refund at present may go above Rs.2000 crores.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar and advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari, appearing for petitioners, submitted that if they are allowed liberty they would monetise their assets and would be able to complete the projects so that the home buyers who intend to have possession can be satisfied.

The Court, hence, directed that the petitioners can arrange the money by executing appropriate documents within a fixed period. However, the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not allowed to meet the lawyers more than once a week and that too without papers. The Court, hence, directed the jail authorities to facilitate the meetings of the petitioners with their officers/officials/employees at such intervals as may be intimated by the petitioners. It also directed that the video conferencing facility be made available to the petitioners within the visiting hours so that they shall be in a position to negotiate. The Court, however, made clear that the petitioners are only entitled to negotiate in respect of unencumbered properties or assets.

The Court also asked amicus curiae to create a portal where the persons who have invested with Unitech by way of fixed deposits shall give the requisite information. However, the home buyers who have already expressed their option in the portal made by the learned amicus curiae shall not put in anything by which their option will be changed.

The matter will now be taken up  in the second week of January 2018. [Sanjay Chandra v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi,  2017 SCC OnLine SC 1260, order dated 30.10.2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While deciding a criminal petition, a Single Judge Bench of Rathnakala, J. enlarged the petitioner on bail holding that there was no impediment to allow the petition.

The petition was filed under S. 439 of CrPC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 302  IPC. The allegation was that the accused invested money with the deceased. Since the deceased was not able to return the money, the accused decided to finish him off. The accused strangulated the deceased and assaulted him with lethal weapons.

The Court after considering the record and the submissions made by the parties, held that the extra judicial confession alleged to be made by the petitioner before CW3 was a matter which was to be subjected to cross-examination during trial. Further, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident.

In light of the above circumstances, the Court held that there was no impediment to allow the petition. Accordingly, the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to the conditions imposed. [Ravi v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 5891 of 2017, dated September 21, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC, a Single Judge Bench of Rathnakala, J. granted bail to the petitioner in view of the affidavit filed by the victim/complainant in which she stated that the petitioner has agreed to marry her.

The petitioner and his brother were arraigned as co-accused in the FIR in a criminal case for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The allegation was that the 1st accused persuaded the victim to consume alcohol and then in her intoxicated condition, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her and videographed the incident.

When the case was called, the complainant filed an affidavit which stated that considering her future she had come to certain terms with the accused and his family. The accused had agreed to marry her. Hence, she prayed that the accused be granted bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner identified that victim/complainant.

In view of the affidavit filed by the complainant, the Court held that there was no impediment to grant the bail to the petitioner and accordingly the petition was allowed and bail granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions imposed. The petitioner was directed not to threaten the complainant and her family. [Rahul Kumar v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 1809, decided on  August 16, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail, a Single Judge Bench of Rathnakala, J. granted bail to the petitioner in consideration of his young age.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted as Accused No. 5 in a criminal case for offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of IPC. Allegation against him was that he along with other accused persons extorted cash, mobile, etc from CW1 and CW2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as accused in eight other cases and was granted bail in all the cases.

The High Court considering the fact that the petitioner was a young person aged 19 years and his parents undertook to vouch for the proper behavior of the petitioner; enlarged him on bail. Accordingly the petition was allowed. [Farhan Khan @ Farhan v. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 5601 of 2017, dated August 18, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Rathnakala, J. rejected the petition holding that mere delay by itself will not entitle the accused for bail.

The petitioner was charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A) and 302 of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody from the year 2013 and till now the trial has not concluded. The Court called for explanation from the Presiding Officer and found that the case was transferred thrice, many a times the accused did not appear, he changed his advocate when the witness were present, etc.

The Court on the basis of above facts held that the case has to be looked along with all facts and circumstances and mere delay by itself is not a ground for bail. Accordingly, the petition was rejected. The trial court was directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. [Sri Channappaji @ Channappa v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 1897 of 2017, decided on August 1, 2017]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 439 of CrPC, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail, a Single Judge Bench of Rathnakala, J. granted bail to the petitioner as no prima facie offence could be made out against him under the NDPS Act.

The petitioner was a Nigerian national, he was in judicial custody for offences under Sections 129B, 465, 468, 471, 474, 419, 420 of IPC along with Sections 8(c), 21(b), and 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The first accused, also a Nigerian national, was already enlarged on bail. During the raid by the responded- Intelligence Officer, the accused were found in possession of cocaine and other psychotropic substances.

The Court noted that the qualitative and quantitative reports of the seized substance were not received at that stage, and it could not be said with certainty that a prima facie case under NDPS Act was made out by the prosecution. Accordingly, the petition was allowed, and the petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to the conditions imposed. [Christian Mgbeojirikwe Uzochukwu v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 5514/2017, dated August 2, 2017]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: The High Court recently dealt with a petition for bail under S. 439 of the CrPC wherein the petitioner-accused was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody for commission of offenses under Sections 120(B), 153(A), 353 and 307  IPC along with Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (Amendment Act 54 of 2001) which essentially deal with punishment for causing explosion or making/ keeping explosives with the intent to endanger life or making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances and Sections 10, 14 and 16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which again, in essence, deal with punishment for being part of any unlawful association or penalty for commission of any terrorist act.

The facts of the case involve the petitioner who had previously been accused of planting pipe bomb to assassinate Shri L.K. Advani at Madurai while the latter was on his tour and hence, already had a non-bailable warrant pending against him when the Investigating Officer was made aware of his whereabouts in Badlagundu. On trying to execute the warrant, the petitioner attacked the Officer but couldn’t cause any harm and was eventually taken to the Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station. On interrogating him, he confessed to have concealed explosives/weapons etc. On further investigation, the weapons were revived from a place nearby the spot of the petitioner’s arrest following which the aforementioned sections were invoked against him.

S.M.A Jinnah, counsel on behalf of the petitioner argued that the prosecution’s case was false due to various discrepancies such as that the petitioner was only remanded on a much later date from the date of occurrence of the alleged incident. At an even later date, the charges were altered and the case was committed to the Sessions Court together on the very same day. The petitioner hence contended that the alleged incident never even took place. He also put forth another contention that since he had been enlarged on bail in all other cases, including for the pipe bombing one by the High Court and had been in prison for more than 3-and-a-half years, he should be granted bail.

Mr. Raja Rathinam, the Public Prosecutor argued that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the petitioner are prima facie true owing which the he shouldn’t be granted bail as is prescribed under S. 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), 1967. He not only tried to resist the execution of the Warrant but his confessions also led to recovery of various explosives etc which were in his possession. It was also clarified that only the formal arrest was shown on the records at a later stage and the alteration in the charges took place due to the discovery of the explosive weapons etc.

The Court thus held that there existed sufficient reasonable grounds to believe the prima facie truth in the case of the prosecution and hence, bail couldn’t be granted. Dr. G. Jayachandran, J. observed that it was clear from the case that the accused was indeed absconding from the process of law and obstructed the execution of the warrant against him along with the recovery of several explosive substances, all of which lead to the conclusion that these constitute reasonable belief about prima facie truth. [Mohamed Hanifa @ Thenkasi Hanifa v. State, 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 2902, decided on 27.06.2017]

 

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The vacation bench of D.Y. Chandrachud and S.K. Kaul, JJ refused to grant interim bail to Justice C.S. Karnan who was arrested yesterday in Coimbatore after being on a run for over a month.

On 09.05.2017, the 7-Judge Bench of Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJ and Dipak Misra, J. Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B. Lokur, PC Ghose and Kurian Joseph, JJ, found Justice Karnan guilty of contempt of court and imposed 6 months’ imprisonment upon him. His advocate Mathew J Nedumpara said that the Court had all the powers and should grant the interim bail to Justice Karnan till the reopening of the Court. However, the vacation bench said that it could not override the decision of a 7-judge bench and hence it could neither grant interim bail nor suspend the 6 months’ sentence awarded to him for contempt of court.

Source: PTI

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Granting bail to Manoranjana Sinh, the accused in the infamous “Chit-fund scam” involving the Saradha Group of Companies, the Court said that the confinement of the appellant in judicial custody is not an indispensable necessity for the unhindered investigation in the case. The said order of the Court came in the light of the settled law that detention in custody of under-trial prisoners for an indefinite period amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, as highlighted in Sanjay Chandra vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40.

The bench of Arun Mishra and Amitava Ghosh, JJ, however, laid down the following conditions:

  • The appellant would surrender her passport to the Trial Court and would not leave the territorial limits of the city Kolkata without the written permission of the Trial Court and without informing the investigating agency.
  • She would report before the Trial Court and the investigating officer once a month, till the investigation in the case is completed in full.
  • She would not in any way hinder or try to influence the investigation in any manner whatsoever and would not endeavor to either tamper with any evidence or induce/influence/dissuade/intimidate any witness or deal with any record relevant to the case.
  • She would cooperate with the investigation and would always be available to be interrogated by the Investigating Agency.

Keeping it open for the Trail Court to lay down any other condition if and as and when necessary, the Court said that the breach or non-compliance of any of the above conditions would entail immediate cancellation of the bail granted, either suo motu or on any complaint made by any quarter whatsoever and would visit the appellant with stringent adverse consequences as contemplated in law. [Manoranjana Sinh v. CBI, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 96, decided on 06.02.2017]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: While hearing bail petition of an accused who was demanding bail on ground of lack of evidence, the Single-Judge Bench of L. Narayana Swamy, J. denied the bail to the accused. The said person was being tried for his act of facilitating a bomb blast by transporting explosives and providing his home for a conspiracy meeting for the blast. The Court held that the accused person should not be given bail only on basis of lack of evidence, as filing of charge-sheet against the person who is being prosecuted for such serious charges as in under Sections 121-A, 123, 307 of IPC is enough to show that the accused is involved in a serious offence related to causing disharmony within the public.

It was contended by the counsel for the petitioner that he was being framed only because he was named by one of the accused of the bomb blast and no other evidence has been found against him. The public prosecutor argued that explosive material was found on instance of this accused person and also the petitioner has a history of being a habitual offender.

The Court observed that charges against the petitioner are grave in nature, which is accentuated by filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, and the fact that the group with which the accused persons in the present case are associated, is a banned group by the Central authorities and the United Nations Organisation for their sole aim to disrupt public peace. Therefore the charges are such, which if proven will result in life imprisonment or death penalty. Considering the anti-national character of the alleged offences against the petitioner, the Court refused to grant bail to the petitioner.  [Zulfikar Ali v. State of Karnataka, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2, decided on 5/01/2017]

 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Delivering its judgement regarding the grant of bail to an accussed alleged of committing the crime of trafficking, who acted in accordance which Section 34  IPC  leading to the commission of grave offences like penetrative sexual assault and harassment under the POCSO Act, the Bench of  Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. held that in these circumstances the accused does not deserve to be released on bail.

The case involved an applicant who was alleged to be an agent for trafficking a minor girl for certain amount under the garb of marriage to another man with whom the minor also gave birth to two children. She was sexually abused and wasn’t given the status of a wife. She was later abandoned by the man. The applicant in this case sought to be granted bail.

On analysing the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the commission of trafficking and other non-bailable and cognizable offences under the POCSO Act for which the punishment may extend to imprisonment for life, this Court rejected the application and held that in such circumstances, bail cannot be granted. [Lonkaran Chothmalji Parmar v. State of Maharashtra, 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 9851, 28.11.2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the hapless and helpless widow of Rajdev Ranjan, a senior reporter of a news daily, i.e., ‘Dainik Hindustan’, who was brutally murdered on 13.05.2016 by a group of persons, the Court, after considering the status report filed by the CBI, directed the CBI to complete the investigation within 3 months.

The Court also asked the Sessions Judge, Siwan (Town), Bihar, to submit a report along with the order sheet on the next date of hearing i.e. 28.11.2016, with regard to the status of Mohammad Kaif and Mohammad Javed as regards they are proclaimed offenders or whether there was issue of non-bailable warrants of arrest from the court or any other aspect relating to the case concerned.

The Court, by order dated 23.09.2016, had directed that police protection be given to the petition as people holding party position and position in the political executive were alleged to be involved in the case as Mohammad Kaif, one of the accused, was spotted with Shahabuddin, Vice President, Rashtriya Janta Dal and Tej Pratap Yadav, Health Minister, Government of Bihar.

The bench of Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ added that the accused persons who have been charge sheeted shall not claim any benefit for enlargement on bail under proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, as the charge sheet has already been filed by the State Police and further investigation is in progress by the CBI. [Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1143, decided on 17.10.2016]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of P.C. Ghose and Amitava Roy, JJ directed the State of Bihar to take all consequential steps, inter alia, for taking Md. Shahabuddin, the respondent-accused, to custody forthwith. The Court said that balancing the considerations of individual liberty and societal interest as well as the prescriptions and the perception of law regarding bail, it appears that the Patna High Court erred in granting bail to the respondent-accused without taking into consideration the overall facts otherwise having a bearing on the exercise of its discretion on the issue.

Prashant Bhushan, counsel appearing for the complainant had contended that the High Court had committed a gross error in granting bail to the respondent-accused and did not consider the contents of the F.I.R. as well as the fact that he is a habitual offender, and that he has in the meantime been awarded two sentences of life imprisonment and also named in several criminal cases. He further urged that the respondent-accused is a category-A history sheeter in view of his persistent criminal antecedents and as in the case in hand, he has been charged with the offence of facilitating murder of a witness in a case in which he was being tried, he ought not to have been granted bail in any view of the matter.

However, Shekhar Napahde, the counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the High Court granted bail on the ground that the trial could not be completed within a period of nine months, as directed by the High Court vide order dated 03.02.2016 while rejecting his earlier prayer for bail in the same case.

Considering the arguments, the Court held that although it has to be accepted that the respondent-accused has already been granted bail by the concerned courts in other cases, a duty is cast upon the Court in addressing such a prayer in a case on its own merit, and while applying its discretion, it must be applied in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. The Court further said that tough the period of custody is a relevant factor, the same has to be weighed simultaneously with the totality of the circumstances and the criminal antecedents in the scale of collective cry and desire and that societal concern has to be kept in view in juxtaposition to individual liberty. [Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1054, decided on 30.09.2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: Reviving a bail order cancelled by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, the bench of P. Devadass J. held that, in matters of cancellation of a bail order due to default in complying with the bail conditions, opportunity must be given to the accused persons to present their case. It was held that the cancellation of a bail order cannot be done mechanically as it involves withdrawal of the liberty that has already given to the accused; hence observance of principles of natural justice is a must.

In the present case the issue was that the petitioners (husband and wife) had been granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of CrPC and certain conditions were imposed which included regular appearance before the police at a scheduled time. Due to compliance of the same, the bail conditions with respect to the wife were relaxed. However, the police subsequently filed a petition for cancellation of the bail order on the grounds that the petitioners have not obeyed the bail condition as per the order. The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai had accepted their contention and cancelled the bail order.

While deciding the matter, it was observed that the Court ought to have provided legal assistance in the form of an Amicus Curiae or a counsel to the accused persons so that the fact that their bail conditions had been relaxed could have been brought in to the notice of the Court. It was also observed by the Court that the grounds for the cancellation of a bail are different from the grounds that are requisites for granting a bail, therefore, more consideration is required while cancelling a bail order. It maintained that an accused cannot be at fault merely because he was not present before the police station or the Court as per the bail condition, as number of contingencies could have prevented him from fulfilling the bail conditions. Hence an opportunity should have been given to the accused. Observing that the Sessions Judge had acted mechanically while cancelling the bail order, the Court chided the Judge for acting like a ‘motionless machine’ and observed that the Sessions Judge should have acted more like a human being than as an ‘inanimate computer’, because unlike a computer, a Judge has a sense of justice to understand that cancellation of a bail order is a serious issue. [Uma Maheshwari v. The State, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 6971, decided on 13.06.2016]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Hearing upon the applications filed by Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti’s (PAAS) firebrand leader and convener Hardik Patel, who was charged with sedition, the bench of A.J. Desai, J., granted him bail along with certain conditions wherein Patel will have to refrain from taking undue advantage of the liberty provided to him. The Court further directed Patel to issue a declaration that he is ready to remain outside the territorial limits of the State of Gujarat for a period of six months from the date of his release.

The present case is a result of the statewide unrest that prevailed in the State of Gujarat last year where there was an agitation led by the leaders of PAAS demanding reservations in government jobs and educational institutions for the Patidar community under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category. As per the contentions of Zubin Bharda representing Hardik Patel, the prosecution has vehemently tried to portray that Patel is the one who is solely responsible for the violence that spread in the aftermath of the rallies that were held in the support of the cause championed by PAAS. It was further argued that grave charges were leveled against the applicant under Section 121 of IPC, as if his demand for reservation was akin to waging war against the State. The contentions were opposed by the Public Prosecutor, Mitesh Amin, who stated that the applicant had used the wide array of social networking sites and internet applications such as ‘watsapp’ to mobilize the members of Patidar community and thereby had conspired to overawe the State Government.

Perusing the contentions of the parties and referring to landmark decisions on sedition, the Court observed that the applicant and his association namely PAAS had called on the members of Patidar community to the various rallies that furthered their cause of attaining reservation under the OBC category. The Court also studied the speeches and the interviews given by the applicant and observed that along with the applicant, several other members of the Patidar community were interested in getting reservation. Therefore the applicant alone cannot be kept behind the bars when other leaders of the agitation have been already granted bail. Considering the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in respect to Section 439 of the CrPC, the Court decided to grant bail to the applicant but with certain mandatory conditions. [Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 824, decided on 08.07.2016]

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Patiala House District Court, New Delhi: While hearing the bail applications of Anirban Bhattacharya and Umair Khalid under Section 439 CrPC, the Court granted interim bail to both the applicants/accused for a period of 6 months subject to forming a personal bond.  In the present case, both the applicants/accused were charged with Section 124 A of Penal Code, 1860 for raising anti-national slogans at the JNU Campus. Investigation revealed that Anirban Bhattacharya and Umair Khalid had applied to hold the event and were the main organizers of the event which ended in raising the anti-national and anti-constitutional slogans. Sh. Trideep Pais, counsel on the behalf of the applicant/accused Anirban Bhattacharya submitted that sloganeering did not lead to any further incident and the allegations against the accused persons fell short of ingredients of Section 124 A Penal Code, 1860. Sh. Jawahar Raja, counsel for the applicant/accused Umar Khalid made similar submissions.

The Court after perusal of the arguments advanced by counsels, relying on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee, (2010) 14 SCC 496 granted bail to the accused persons keeping in view that no previous criminal record of any nature found and also the fact that nothing has been brought on record which could indicate that they are likely to abscond from the jurisdiction of Court. Therefore, the Court granted interim bail to both the applicants/accused for a period of 6 months subject to forming a personal bond in sum of Rs. 25,000 with one surety of the like amount. The Court also directed the accused persons for not leaving Delhi without the permission of the Court during the bail period. [State v. Anirban Bhattacharya, Bail Application No. 1153/16 & 1154/16, decided on 18.03.2016.]

 Read the order Here