Top
News Updates

Bail Is Not A Licence For Committing Any Number Of Crimes: Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber
4 Jan 2021 11:29 AM GMT
Bail Is Not A Licence For Committing Any Number Of Crimes: Karnataka High Court
x

The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to claim bail under section 436 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) becomes circumscribed when an accused repeatedly commits bailable offence/s. Justice SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR said "A person being on bail in relation to a bailable offence and applies for bail having again committed a bailable offence cannot as a matter of right...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Karnataka High Court has said that the right to claim bail under section 436 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc) becomes circumscribed when an accused repeatedly commits bailable offence/s.

Justice SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR said "A person being on bail in relation to a bailable offence and applies for bail having again committed a bailable offence cannot as a matter of right claim bail. Any attempt to liberally interpret the right in this manner without having an idea of far-reaching consequences will have disastrous effects on the society or a system."

The court made these observations while hearing a bail application filed by a foreign national Aluka Sandra Orewa @ Benny accused of collecting data of the ATM card of the victim Pavithra D by fixing a device called skimmer to ATM, prepared a forged ATM card and withdrew money to the tune of Rs 90,000 from her bank account in February.

Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha appearing for the petitioner submitted that the accused was arrested in connection with four cases and that bail was granted to her in two cases. While the prosecution contended that petitioner is involved in about 60 cases of similar nature. FIRs have been registered against her and other accused at various police stations for the same offence. She is a habitual offender and if bail is granted she will resort to committing the same offence once again and hence there are no grounds for granting bail

The court noted that section 436(2) of Cr.P.C. envisages that bail granted under Section 436(1) of Cr.P.C. may be cancelled if the person released on bail violates conditions of bail as to time and place of attendance. The court referred to the two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely Talab Haji Hussain vs Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Another [AIR 1958 SC 376] and Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs Assistant Collector of Customs [AIR 1967 SC 1639].

It noted that "The conspectus of these decisions shows that the High Court has inherent power to cancel the bail granted to an accused in a bailable case if his conduct subsequent to grant of bail hampers fair trial."

It added "The reason for referring to these decisions is not that they are directly applicable to the case on hand, but provides a basis for pondering over a perspicacious issue under discussion which is more of a noumenal. Bail is not a licence for committing any number of crimes. Though bail is related to liberty of a person, misuse of liberty is not justifiable. Crimes which are not targeted against an individual, but perpetrated against society must be viewed quite differently."

The bench concluded by saying "If the petitioner's case is examined in the above perspective, she cannot claim bail as a matter of right. There are materials indicating her involvement in the crime. Yet considering the factors that she is a woman, that the instruments and devices are recovered from her, and that her passport and Visa are also seized, she can be admitted to bail. It cannot be said that she is not available for trial."

The bench accordingly granted bail to the petitioner on a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of like amount. It also directed her to regularly appear before the trial court till conclusion of trial. Mark her attendance before the Yelahanka Police Station every week on a Sunday between 9.00 AM and 12 noon, till conclusion of trial. Furnish her address proof and mobile telephone numbers (if more than one) to the trial Court. In case she changes her residence, a new address shall be furnished to the trial. Likewise she shall retain the same mobile number till conclusion of trial. When she goes to the police station to mark attendance, she shall assure the police that she has not changed the mobile telephone numbers. If she gets involved in any criminal case in future, and violates any of the above conditions, the bail granted now will stand cancelled automatically and the police can arrest her.

Case Details : Aluka Sandra Orewa @ Benny And State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6286 OF 2020

Date of Order: 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

Coram: JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

Appearance: Senior Advocate Hasmath Pasha, a/w Advocate Nasir Ali.

Advocate B.J.Rohith for respondents

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]




Next Story
Share it