After an accused is released on Bail And some serious offences are invoked at a Later point of Time, there is no question Of seeking any Cancellation Of Bail: High Court of Bombay
The accused who has been granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the newly added offenses. A Single-Judge Bench comprising of Justice Mangesh S. Patil adjudicating the matter of NANA @ NARSING VISHWASRAO NAYAK AND OTHERS V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.221 OF 2021) dealt with the issue of whether to grant bail or not.
In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the regular bail granted to them under the provision of Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been canceled, post a request put up by the prosecution, to add, in addition to the earlier sections under the Indian Penal Code, the offenses punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 after a sanction under Section 21 of the MCOC Act was received.
The Petitioner submitted that the petitioners were granted a regular bail and in the absence of any supervening circumstance or a breach of terms and conditions subject to which the bail was granted, it could not have been canceled. He would submit that merely because the provision of the MCOC Act was invoked at a later point of time that would not constitute a supervening circumstance. Liberty ought not to have been curtailed in the manner in which it had been done. There are circumstances to indicate that the petitioner is being falsely involved under a serious charge. There is material to prima facie demonstrate that the sanctioning authority was perhaps hand-in-gloves with the original informant. A tainted sanction is not a sanction in the eye of law.
The Respondents strongly oppose the Writ Petitions and submit that invoking a serious charge at a later point of time is indeed a supervening circumstance, the cognizance of which ought to be taken for canceling the bail. It was also pointed out by the Respondents in such a fact situation where some aggravated offenses are invoked at a later point of time after granting of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required and only permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated.
The court held that in such a fact situation where some aggravated offenses are invoked at a later point of time after granting of bail, a relief of cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not required, and only permission to arrest the accused who has been granted bail is contemplated. Also, it relied on that, the accused who has been granted bail is required to surrender and again apply for bail under the newly added offenses. They would therefore submit that though there could be some error in articulating the prayer in the application whereby bail was sought to be canceled, the procedure being handmaid of justice, the impugned order can be read to mean that what was asked before the learned Judge and what was actually granted was merely a permission to arrest the petitioners.