The Gujarat High Court mentions that bail should not be cancelled on the assumption of the accused’s guilt and that the appellate or superior court can consider the correctness of an order granting bail if material facts or crucial circumstances were ignored.
Case- Chetnaben W/O Manilal Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat (R/CR.MA/2110/2016)
Decided on: 22nd June 2023
CORAM: HON’BLE Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak
Introduction
The original complainant makes the application to cancel the bail granted to the accused persons. The accused were granted bail in connection with a case registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the G.P. Act.
Judgement
The court has heard arguments from the counsels representing the respective parties. The counsel for the applicant argues that the bail granted is illegal and arbitrary, while the counsel for the accused states that there have been no incidents or complaints against the accused since their release on bail.
The court examines the impugned order passed by the Trial Court and considers the submissions and facts of the case. It notes that the injured persons are no longer under treatment and are out of danger. Based on these considerations, the court opines that the Trial Court has rightly exercised its power under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to grant bail.
The court then emphasises the distinction between considering a bail application and deciding on a petition for its cancellation. It cites previous court decisions that highlight the grounds for cancellation of bail, such as interference with the administration of justice, evasion of justice, abuse of the concession of bail, possibility of the accused absconding, likelihood of misuse of bail, and tampering with evidence or threatening witnesses.
The court refers to various Supreme Court judgments that guide the cancellation of bail, including the need for compelling and overwhelming circumstances to justify cancellation, the examination of relevant material and omission of considerations in the bail grant, and the inability of the court that grant bail to review its order as to give of bail on the grounds of it being unjustified, illegal, or perverse.
The court also mentions that bail should not be cancelled on the assumption of the accused’s guilt and that the appellate or superior court can consider the correctness of an order granting bail if material facts or crucial circumstances were ignored.
Ultimately, based on the facts and circumstances of the case, the court concludes that there are no cogent and relevant grounds to cancel the bail granted to the accused. It affirms the reasoning of the Trial Court and dismisses the application for cancellation of bail.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has over 20 years of experience in various sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aadit Shah