Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Delhi High Court Restores Bail In View Of Disputed Fact About Accused Threatening Complainant

Nupur Thapliyal
17 Sep 2022 4:30 AM GMT
Delhi High Court Restores Bail In View Of Disputed Fact About Accused Threatening Complainant
x
The Court also noted that the parties were related.

The Delhi High Court has recently restored bail to three men after the parties lodged counter FIRs against each other, noting unless the investigation in both the cases reaches its logical conclusion, it cannot be assumed that the accused persons had violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the lower court or tried to influence the administration of justice.The Court also reiterated...

The Delhi High Court has recently restored bail to three men after the parties lodged counter FIRs against each other, noting unless the investigation in both the cases reaches its logical conclusion, it cannot be assumed that the accused persons had violated any of the conditions of bail granted by the lower court or tried to influence the administration of justice.

The Court also reiterated that once bail is granted, the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, adding that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail.

"It is thus, seen that occurrence of supervening circumstances can always be the basis for cancellation of bail granted earlier besides, the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused on merits. Cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted or because of some supervening circumstances, warranting such cancellation, is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail, which is unjustified, illegal and perverse," Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed.

The Court said so while dealing with a plea filed by three men challenging an order passed by Additional Sessions Judge cancelling their regular bail.

An FIR was registered against the petitioners and their family members under sec. 365, 506, 379, 356, 348 and 34 of the IPC. The complainant stated that he was kidnapped in a Skoda Car. While two of the petitioners were advocates, the third petitioner was a qualified commercial pilot.

Although the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court, one of the petitioners filed a complaint against one of the respondents alleging that he did not have inimical relations with his cousin for the last many years. The petitioner alleged that his cousin, on the date of hearing on charge, caught hold of his collar, threatened and slapped him.

Thereafter, the cousin filed another complaint alleging that when he went to attend the hearing of the case, he found that the petitioners and other persons were standing along with unknown people, who threatened him to withdraw the complaint and started beating him.

Pursuant thereto, another FIR was registered against the cousin on the complaint of one of the petitioners. On account of the said incident, prosecution filed an application for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners and others.

The ASJ vide impugned order cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners and they were directed to surrender before the trial court immediately.

In appeal, the High Court observed that once bail is granted the same should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner, without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.

"This court is not oblivious of the fact that there is an FIR and a counter FIR with respect to incident dated 01.03.2014. The truth of the allegations and counter allegations has not yet surfaced. The parties are relatives," the Court noted.

Setting aside the impugned order, the Court restored the Trial Court order granting bail to the petitioners with the condition that they shall furnish a fresh personal bond of Rs.10,000 each with one surety of the like amount.

The pleas were thus allowed.

Case Title: JAGAT SINGH NAGAR & ORS v. STATE & ORS

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 881

Click Here To Read Order 


Next Story