: BOA | Statutory Bart» pu yr Bor | A ‘ bos 7 ; > Wreent Tow vor bY rior b vane ) Qearl pak ont yawne \ y S499 chapter XXXIII—Provisions as to Bail and Bonds General Notes pail can be broadly classed into t ‘i MAT bail é eet ces. In the former class, the reentoree la i by lice station having the accused ¢ iy the Cour aca 1 de d executing @ wy OC jqhout sureties [s. “36(1)1. In non-bailable cases, the accused may eh ce ean ce Acid appear on reaoabl 4 pall. of ano! er with death ‘ith impri: Hy g sot apply 10 Ora rn ath or with ingest for ul rson. AS SOO) ‘asonable grounds for the guilt to appear, o nf ed to be released on bail or on his own recephemee We eae te also sear reasons, between the close of the case and delivery of the judgment. simms released on, bail, the order with reasons therefor should in writing. A mS pal may be fen into custody by order ofthe Count 437) In he ed ", “Court or the Court of Session may admit a person to bail or reduce 4: ; 44S soon as the bail bond is executed, the ; released from custody (s. 442). When the amount of bail taken is Tn a Co ciditional ball (6. 443), surety who is a 10 ‘or his disch: * i js at Leable 5. 444), ischarge; and the accused is then power of the Court to admit o bail is not arbitrary, ne sion i i but is judicial, oe ob established rinciples. The cb is dudicial. BE povers ee! ad makes an application for bat dire re 4 Feces iy. Howeuer abbas ig be aga Be wen a to. the on the dat ie a fail application.’ But Iso_be it does not mea dismissed. Short- J 4 iod. shall -not_be.the-sale_ ground for enlarging a_persan_on_hail sane the decided on-metits.alone.* The object of the detention of the accused Sip 1 Sais appearance to abide the sentence of law, the principal inquiry is, fs cognizance would affect that end. In seeking an answer to this inquiry, pete ee considered the seriousness of the charge, the nature of the evidence, the ti ba the punishment prescribed for thé offence, and, in some instances, the getty eos nding. of the accused. Bail was refused by the Supreme Court to a thorised dealer illegally dealing in foreign exchange, commonly known as ig v0 jon and who had been instrumental in transferring huge sums to militants fos wu & Kashmir for use in disruptive and terrorist activities, although there was Tikelihood that completion of investigation may take a long time. Bail was refused sat regard to seriousness of allegations against the accused. swing 4 S. 436. (1) When any person other than a person accused ia hat cases bail tobe gf @ non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without aay U4?) pwarrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or " ,@ppears or is brought before a Court, and is prepared at L Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., (1989) 26 ACC 57 (All). ) 1 Hidayat Husain Khan (Dr.) v. State of U.P., 1992 CrLJ 3534 (All). 4 Nagendra Nath Chakravarti, (1924) ILR 51 Cal 402, 416; Robinson, (1854) 23 LIQB 286, 287; Jose (1898) 18 Cox 717, 719. Moo! Chand v. State, AIR 1992 SC 1618 : 1992 CrLJ 2330 : (1991) 2 Supp SCC 101. Then grant of ilable cases, i sete y the police officer in charge of a Of bail is a matter of course. It myaeten eleS te Code of Criminal Procedure, 1994 stody of such officer or at a Ne # nthe such person shall be relea: sed on BS OF the that auch off 4 oars vere shlnks fit, . rei it am SC hone a person. “a einafter provid F wi : se arance S re a person is unable to give bait Nout (ficient ground for the officer hwithin ‘ son for the purposes of this Proviso,] the Coste “ ver that nothing in this section shat he provided LA ction (3) of section 116 Tor section ae 9 , nding anything contained in sul 0), emeg to ithstar conditions of the bail-bond as Where a rth the Cray refuse to release him on bail, when CS pears before the Court or is by On a i without suuice to the powers of the Cae in e to pay the penalty thereof under se fon rg cal ae STATE AMENDMENT Y amendments were made by U.P. Act # section (1) in the first proviso for the 984.5 Word The following —In section 436 in sub- at al be ‘substituted. Act, 2005 [Clause 35]. In respect anil bail, f baila t) he crp.c. (Amendmen® for his inahility to furnis! . main in jail for. én person wr Ni therefore, being amended to make a eeu Section 49 js accused of a bailable offence and he is an ae acest Cont shall release him on his execution of a bond wit ‘ oe ho is arrested i, be. ‘ re a son WI is not a 9 COMMENT.—\Where # Priv should be placed in the way of hag : impedim« J 7 offence, nO ate ea is ordinarily to be at liberty, and it is ones pail Jin such cases, poe to be e 7 ‘oderate security, if any, as is required of him, ag i fu eri his appearance before a Court pending’ inqu; " st remain in detention. is bound to release the person al cl u e section is imperative, and under js ce = on bail or recognizance.’ Bur bate the supposes that he is in iL” The fundamental should not be deprived of his liberty(excep stantial risk of the accused fleeing the course ofj Jd be imprisoned during the period of his trial. The unless there are circumstances suggesting the pos st justice is that a person of law/If there is no su! no reason why he shou! to release him on bail (i eee 5, Substituted for the words “may instead of taking bail” by the Cr.P.C. (Amend.) Act, 5 (25 of 2005), s. 35 (w.ef. 23-6-2006 vide Notfn. No. SO 923(B), dt. 21-6-2006), 9% 6 Explanation inserted by the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005.(25 of 2005), s. 35 (w.e-f, 23-6206 vide Notfn. No. SO 923(E), dt. 21-6-2006). = — pe 7. These words were inserted by Act No. 63 of 1980, s. 4 (w.e-f. 23-9-1980). 8 Emperor v. Mir Hashamali, (1918) 20 Bom LR. 121; Kanubhai Chhaganlal 9, Beni 1973 CrLJ 533. ‘ es . Raghunandan Pershad v. The Emperor, (1904) 32 Cal 80,83.” » eer Pulinthanam v. sae of Kerala, AIR of Orissa, 1981 Cx} eae ieee AIR 1963 MP baiProvisions as to Bail and Ronds x61 ' the con justi ro or hwareens reas justice." @hen bail is-ref sed, st 13 4 * a wetigonal liberty Of the individual guaranteedby_-Act-21 of -tbe mn T ineretore Sut Must.be rate.'® Where delays in the disposal of ne ce aes ae lege or Ought not to be kept in custody for an ng, possible to do 5 en bail except when under extremely rare 1 ios ranting baile) teuis.0 ant bail Ce the Code vests in the Court before mpesMnce of the an " “Court” means the Court which s jzanc asc... The power of the Magi 6,00 ET eeto tthe: ie Magistrate to grant bail does spiscompel Che Case but_on the punishment prescribed forthe t which has only "ie power to remand ws, TO7 is not a competent Court 1 similarly. an_executive Magistrate Sarladibsions bail Sf offences punishable. with. No jurisdiction. Saeaan wee to a person fot accused of such offences, the Magistrate who has ogniz¢nce has power to grant bail even when the accused is jn ‘a take © of an order of remand p; r i “ eghion basis g assed by an executive Magistrate. of cal an approver’s eden a semneling grounds ace invokedLin fsclisebsim where an approver s evidence had already been recorded, the Court wae released on bail since no purpose was going to be served by his further ‘io™ Court has held that unnecessarily inhibitive condition ought not to be suprenne ranting bail. An ON pelscting surety because he or a estate was fg whil erent district Was held to be discriminatory and violative of Ar. 14 ofthe ied in 99 where the anna ane granted bail in a bailable offence by the atom furnishing of bail bond of Rs. 2,000 with one surety for the like amount Gia OF Cash security of Rs. 2,000 and there was no likelihood of absconding, the v0 oF, Court directed him ee ae Property security of Rs. 5,000 with one surety a a a that the bail rics should not be so unreasonable, harsh and oppressive so as jy Boe Genial of bail. 4 esl in ental concep! i i 2 et time-and-plaoe. It is natural and relevant fer ae ‘Court.to consider 'n relation to and in the light of the nature of the crime charged and the et ee 4 therwise of the guilt of the accused thereunder. At an early stage when cli asks fOr bail, the Court has necessarily to act on a reasonable and intelligent Ps which ex-hypothesis must, to a certain extent, be problematical because the icine yun its course. In matters of bail, the test to be applied is the test of nal ee belief as opposed to decision and conclusion which marks the end of the trial. a lable materials for the Court in considering the question of granting bail are the avail, the attendant facts including the police report, facts stated in the petition for eG the grounds of opposition to the granting of that petition,”’ M ‘gute of Rajasthan v. Balchand, 1978 CrLJ 195 : AIR 1977 SC 2447 : (1977) 4 SCC 308; Gudikanti Mh Mimasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, A.P., 1978 CrLY 502: AIR 1978 SC 429 : (1978) 1 SCC 240. 11 Babu Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1978 CaLJ 651 : AIR 1978 SC 527 : (1978) 1 SCC 579; Afsar Khan v, State of Karnataka, 1992 CrLJ 1676 (Kant), 1 Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979 CrLJ 1036 : AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1980) 1 SCC 81. 14. Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani, AIR 2009 SC 1341 : (2009) 4 SCC 446 : 2009 CrLJ 1887. 18 Aftab Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1990 CrLJ 1636 (All). 16, Singeshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, 1976 CrL¥ 1511 (Pat). 11. Chittar v. State of Rajasthan, 1980 CrLJ NOC 94 (Raj). 18, Prem Chand v. State, 1985 CrLJ 1534 (Del). 19. Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1978 CrLJ 1703 ; AIR 1978 SC 1594 : (1979) 4 SCC 485. 1. Anwer Husain v. State of Orissa, 1995 CrLJ 863 (Ori). 4, Badri Prasad Missir v. State, (1953) ILR 1 Cal 280 : AIR 1953 Cal 28.ne if at any sub: quent rents, ipailable offence is in midatie , ris attempting to abscond, the Hj bin J to commit him to custody f th Court or ‘ tional cases only when the Such pt has j ted unless the accused is corm; High ‘1 for six years. No progress gu remove the accused frets ade der would be withdrawn, mM. the y with the evidence. The bail was ail, le offences insistence on personal bond jediction of the Court u/s, 436,79 e jut nt bail in a case arising out of ap accused wa onal charge was filed, he Seen are case wespect of the additional charges. c ‘ : i 5 . js released 07 bail by the police, when, ie he furnishing of fresh bail pendsci Miami hell the orders, granting bail and incidental’ * ple of modification. nae in ore, ila’ Was 40 Police by nder POT! then. there.were ‘ons was held to be.ma bail were rejected by the High ed to have been committed ssitating the release, of the ac he High Court was held to at clade ications for e offence alleg situations thereafter nece’ granting pail thereafter by ¢ ottam Mondkar, (1958) SCR 1226 : 60 Be f «i Hussain v. Madhukar Purshi 22. Talab Haji 1958 SC 376: 1958 CrLI 701 « 33, halal Asst. Collector of CUS: [AIR 1967 SC 1639 : 1967 CrLJ 1576, oon through CB, 1992 CALI 104 (Del); Jagannath Mishra, SCC (Cri) 1337, fodder scam case, charge 2A. Virsa Singh v. Ly Bee 611 1 (1998) 9 ST 149 (1) : 1998 submitted and no investigation was pen accused, bail was granted iti % Je ding against the 25. Chowriappa Constructions ¥. Embassy Constructions & Developments 3863 (Kant). 26. Katyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1990 CrLJ 1658 (All). 1 CrLJ 806 (Raj). Monit Malhotra v. State of Rajasthan, 199 . Nazeem v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, 1992 CrLJ 390 (Bom). | a People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, AIR 2 Rajendra Singh Sethia v. State, 1988 CrLJ 749 (Del). Ae Sat ia Maharashtra y. B. Subha Rao, 1989 CrLJ BRProvisions il 9 Provisions as to Bail and Bonds bits of the nc Ws. 482 are not in any way affected by the tion. THe a Court can, therefore, in a proper case, u/s. 422, to am accuse L parrot under this section and re-arrest him’ or, while ver nis departure from India asking him to surrender his passport.” yes not state I ea released must give a bond himself. The person’ rs into a ooeath ih ney Clause to produce the accused entctite when ca cc TRth Asn the principal. The person for whom bail is git ject of the ote into pecan Biving bail fails to perform his contract ay clause, © operation against him although it is not necessary alty es «pail to éxpress no opinion on contentious iss: It is a saluta tet orders beat or granting bail are passed, the Cont should avoid that “ony one way or the other on contentious issues, except in cases such ¢ Te within 8.37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances ers. i iven act |” ,ant not necessary.—In cases of AS” “omplail - ses of release of persons accused of ¢ to CO such as defamation, the Court is not bound to issue a notice to the ‘ x me off Ng hear him. to be no proper th been ginaM 6 grout that the-complain: thus princi i pla on the a noel re. violal - ate Woe of failure to comply with conditions of bail [Sub-section (2)]—This oe ce i ti i "Cot guermmpowers the sou pee bail to an accused person even if the offence is “ecti0 e_ person-grant i iti qi ples es ‘usal will not-aff he J. 54 he bond and recover provision in tne THe ‘of bail on surreptitious conversion of offence.—The bail was granted to the Grant accepting allegation of surreptitious conversion of the offence by the police oused HUA 10 s,,304 Indian. yde(IRC). ‘The charge-sheet filed in fact was 1 “though investigation Was for the offence wsi04e IEG No reasons were given us. a, The Court said that the bail was liable to be cancelled. But, considering the i Re the prosecution evidence. was.closed,-conditional-bail-was.granted.** ° jay in implementing bail order.—There was delay in releasing the appellant pelay in iPitder, The Court required the superintendent of jail to explain delay. The ‘was explained to be/due to proced ities in giving eff g.the b er d not due. to_laxity..onthe.pa a .\The Court was satisfied with the and nolL ? explanation. / 49'S, 436-A. Where a person has, during the period of Maximum period ie investigation, inquiry or trial under this Code of an offence which an omeba under any law (not being an offence for which the ee on punishment of death has been specified as one of the _O. Itt sonears to seh Onaae %. Madhukar v, Talab Haji Hussain, (1958) 60 Bom LR 465 : AIR 1958 Bom 406 : 1958 CrLJ 1308. 3B Hazari Lal v. Rameshwar Prasad, AIR 1972 SC 484 ; 1972 CrLJ 298 : (1972) 1 SCC 452. M, Indar, (1941) 22 Lah 519. 3. Kanti Bhadra Shah v, State of W.B., AIR 2000 SC 522 : 2000 CrLJ 746 : (2000) 1 SCC 722. 3M. Mool Chand v. State, 1992 CrLJ 2330 : AIR 1992 SC 1618 : 1991 Supp (2) SCC 101. 31. Rasiklal v. Kishore Khan Chand Wadhwani, ATR 2009 SC 1341 : (2008) 15 SCC 705 : 2009 CxLJ 335. & VD. Chaudhary , State of UP, AIR 2005 SC 3270 : (2005) 12 SCC 304 : 2005 Cel) 3753. ». Pasalv. State (NCT) of Delhi, AIR 2004 SC 1184 : (2004) 9 SCC 81 2004 Crl-1 593, New s. 436A inserted by the Cr.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005), s. 36 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006 vide Notfn. No. SO 923(E), dt. 21-6-2006)._—————— Provisions as to Bail and Bonds 959 c chandigarh.—Same as Punjab), s ‘ das policed on bail ne ie gl easing ri Sub-section ({ -secti M1 el ytion reasonable opportunity to show cause hy a ape ae se 2p ment) Act, 2005 [Clause (37))__yj, a - is Clause seeks to amend s. 437 ( ame son commits a cognizable and non-bailable ethane and he has of a cognizable offence punishable e avicted ee i aa a ee! ree ore but be for Not less than seven years, he shall not be yO nent On is ified i 0 fetes min the oe eae Specified in the provision, ‘a x = it if an ace pied, provided a nave for taiepeas before the Court while in judicial a yr on opportunity of hearing tote ores eal the Court shall grant i iy on giving ify tale punisbabehs Prosecution, if the offence alleged a oft en Coe iss than een earat with death, imprisonment for life or em) of $437 of the Code, the Court -s." grant of bail. Under s, 441(2), n on bail, the bond shall contain is section gives the Court or a police officer F C power to release an Me bal it’ non-bailable case, unless there appear reasonable grounds that the jgovsed Pi, been guilty of an offence punishable with death or with imprisonment for ore (1) a person under the age of 16 years; (2) a woman; or (3) a sick or infirm , Bay be releases St bail even if the offence charged is punishable with death or mt) for life."/?Where a person is charged with a non-bailable offence, but it mene course of the trial that he is not guilty of such offence, he can be ° avr ately released On bail pending further inquiry. The same may be done after the ea of a trial and before judgment is pronounced, if the person is believed not to of a non-bailable offence, As.a safeguard, the section provides for review of the the Court which has released the person on bail.(The Court should take into wr ideration various matters such as nature and seriousness of the offence, the character comdence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of of emesenice of the accused not being secured at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the vee being tampered with, the interest of the public or the State and similar other} ~ winerations before granting the bail, Where an dccused was charged u/s!3 of th official Secrets Act relating to military affair and the High Court granted bail on the ound of insufficiency of materials to sustain the conviction, the Supreme Court held ihat the bail ought not to have been granted. is-discreti hasta be exercised with-great ca with the interest of. the.society in general The Court has.to state reasons forits.order. The Allahabad High Court has held that when an accused surrenders in the Court an applies for bail, the subordinate Courts have jurisdiction to release him on personal bond, pending disposal of his bail, application. This should be particularly so in the cases of women and children, It was further observed that bail applications should be decided as expeditiously as possible and should not be allowed to remain pending for long.” Where 49. Venkataramanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1992 CrLJ 2268 (Knt). & Siatev. Jaspal Singh Gill, AIR 1984 SC 1503 : (1984) 3 SCC 555 : 1984 CeLJ 1211. gy Mansab Ali v. Irsan, AIR 2003 SC 707: 2002x3871. Issa v. State, 1993 CrLJ 2432 (All).ne Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 The 6 of TADA, whi charge w/s: 6 ohh nich ea on ac and eight ri ont) ested OP foe four years eht months, thes’ was Aed im 8 = rem sed emi fact that the secti nen e e mere fac Section mak nd of lesser offences oF thar ey 8 dint I rs y— jt lilt Frances wn iro Mt raver c(h) women ba pire steel po dogg tomy tio oie Cone ng PTT ng Hit BY AT sonable relation ution, -ROUMatts ve ors i) YOUNE Frid DOIME Vand has reasonable relation to the: The Mike ee in nia Petime of granting the bail, thene Plea Sl oe EE at there is no isi me Court that th Provision j, Se pre ‘Court or the High Court to enter! the es ower of Magistrate and iat and aa Ed of equites that the. person se that of * ma whi ‘and, requires, th; < x i oo ther. hand,.requir mt b “ passin. can DAS 8 ‘ p Me jurisdiction. he prayer for bail.” oovaded 0 deal retion—The Sufreme Court hag ising di Hoa lai ea Se oc on nan han fl ie zecaring he 1 oh is-a discretionary order, +t, howeve A py Grant gf Da areas manner and not asa matter of cours a oe cretion if. Senor be sustained. While placemy 5 ge coaxg ress saat Be hat by itself cannot be a ein th wa Ema be consid same,.ought. always to be coupled wit igh gratof bal andte- 0 The nature of the offence is one of the bes ir rs for the grant of bail—more heinous is the crime, the greater is the change gs ver, dependent on ix of the m: 0 pai, though, however, dependent the factual matrix of the matter, aa pio! Certain other relevant considerations, which are only illustrative and Motus follows: rappel ) not only the nature of accusations but the severity of punishment in dace | + Sure the supporting evidence, Mt Sa86 bf $3, Gian Praup Singh v Sate of Rajasthan, 1995 CrLJ 4187 : (1995) 5 SCC 591 « ‘ 54. Nirmal Kumar Banerjee v. The State, 1972 5 i i AM * Sa inerjee v. The State, 1972 CrLJ 1582; Shehat Ali v, State °fRaes $8. Prashant Kumar v. Mancharlal, 1988 CrLJ 1463 (Bor i % 1. % Copa Dhamani, 1988 CrLI 1079 Ra. 1 ti Tesco Bae Site of Maharashira, AIR 2014 SC 1745 : 2014 Cel. Dus 58. Ram Govind Upadhyay 1 i 1849-7 oz) ¥. Sudarshan Singh, (2002) 3 SC : AIR ae cu 3 da oO) SCALE 12; Chai Cal Ane i f Ue eee, ws, 12 athe . CBI, AIR 1997 S025 oa iH) ad Gi, ented to aay oe of tampering with evidence, the case mance elicion was nage ‘aswami v. CBI, AIR 1998 SC 2619 (1988) Site of Bitar, ogg ce 8. The Supreme Chart ye ion, © 80 abroad for medical advice ai Custody f 296 : urt did not grant the permission. Satya § . and, "NE Years, the ease wag ee SC 1925 : (2000) 9 SCC 398, the accused had bee i ng at slow pace, released on condition of submit f 1°00) outtaProvisions as to Bail and Bond , I rehension.of tampering. wi ; eS With the sitnesses. or apprehension of threat 1m the : En ofthe ut genincness.of.the etch he. ake ard and genuine x ution, i ned in the matter pee is ony the element of genuineness that in the event of some doubt as to the Aonsid course of events, the accused is entitled to an ns ww encss of the prosecution, in the normal V gegeot ion for bal w o ication ‘as moved br pe a? vation of public fund, y an accused ; Pe Geapp cn the only pyle Ne said that ean es ial to PU agces isthe Most racraon in considering the spalleaton? the role of m {30g Sanaa . There is . fd se 2 tong Peer Cn ctr Tea deed nace’ aod ber aed beer O Es Ne reer a already in jail for mo used in this case had neg case u ef eet rf seat was that he aae than six as was m m to carry other accus been eine Mihy te MP o delay the PALA ee ee wees wer Tavestigation had been completed. The why that it was not a fit case for of ball gst the ‘MP were very serious.” was also partly over. and Pio" © ie grounds for believing that we onable 2 a g that he has been guil geas°ritn death oF imprisonment for life’—The mai guilty of an offence paarcncnatle ground believing that the petitioner i ane iene ee se pee accused’. oe er considerations must also arise BR We fica of cused on bail, and one of these, which has always guide ‘4 ‘Seed nas tio” ing. the ac a i ae ‘hin England \d India, ane ie ui jal,’! There are no h: Justi oF s inguiry.ontrial e 0 hard and fast rules regardin; er yi “has to be considered on its : ig grant of re! ol g each case pot disc 5 own merits. The matter always calls for Sis involve ence-punishable. with death, or imprisonment for life-is.05° gee So also AE Ta that the prisoner, if ee IS messes: should not be taken, into account, But the Magistrate may well refuse to plot pail where the prisoner is of such a character that his presence at large will wre there are reasonable grounds for believing that he will use the facts of the jtnesses, OF wher j iid born evidence. ‘Where in a case of murder in a public place, nce, the Sessions Judge would not the ground that he pert 10 SUDO ndicated the commission of an offei to grant bail to the accused for medical check-up on sl . on jurisdiction n ¢ jon and depression. juris iv from hypertens Fe tastes ec ne 2 ‘ i i Where the Magistrate noticed in his FIR, he punishable with life. imprisonment for 10-years- : ‘d that an offence ws. 124A IPC was made out on the basis of the order of reman 59, Fida Hussain Bohra v. State of) ‘Maharashtra, ATR 2009 SC 2080 : (2009) 5 SCC 150 : (2009) CrLI 1715. njan Yadav v. CBI, AIR 2007 SC 451: (2007) 1 SCC. 70; 2007 CrLJ 304. JLR 36 Cal 174, 177; Emperor v. Keshav Kortikar, (1933) 35 @. Rajesh Rar 61. Jamini Mullick v. Emperor, (1908) Bom LR 1072 : AIR 1933 Bom 492. Jintabi v. State of M.P., 1996 CrLJ 4305 (MP), seizure of woman's father-in-law, reasonable contraband, house from where seizure belonged to the applicant ground to believe that she was not guilty of the offence, bail granted, Vijoyananda Swain v. State of Orissa, 1996 CrLJ 4231 (Ori), bail granted in a property dispute subject to the condition that the grantee would not enter the jand in question whereas the civil Court had ordered status quo, condition improper. panes) . State of Kerala v. M-K. Pyloth, 1973 CrLJ 869. = folio (1930) 32 Bom LR 1499. aon of Madhya Pradesh v. Gyan Singh, 1992 CHLI 192 (MP). ” it ‘sh v, State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cod 205 (Bom).Code ee Th l fence Ws. 124A IPC bein x yl for life.” Where oni ve thal ld not be granted to other Co-ed ey pail 0 that bail should Not be gr an “where bail was: granteg ps Act from heart disease and there ag . Si evidence or threaten the Wither & wil! CSseq pas interpreted the Words “he shay Tot ail, HN" , ba an? pate’ ith imp" in mper “1 ., irrespective of the merits of a ¢, 2) is eel for more than 60 days during’ it; oe Magistrate ws, 167(2), it is open tog y one basis of the materials submi nted where there is a Valid Court that conditions of bail shoutg Rot ™ Where an accused was Tequited held n cant y the Supe ced. a ofthe ae ing in the State, it wag with {wo S s Tesi i far RS 100.000 Oe the srielt”* At the time oF granting erated 10 denial oes.” in ame" -y should not delay in the conclusion of a trial is an ia that if ie accused, charged with murder, haq we fact aie was held by self to be mo gtound fog i a were not instrumental in delaying the tri of ana also held to be not a proper ground for bai vocally stated in their statement u/s, 16] CPG. t the time of occurrence and he fired with his gun. The pi vec case for grant of bail was made out. og rina fac ff reasons mandatory.—A statement of Teasons for Statement of ira The accused in this case remained in cu been held to be man ency had laid its final report. The High Co ea Supreme Court allowed the accused to’ ap Geta aad the High Court was directed to pass a reasoned ord was al with committing serious offences of cruelty and dow that the oder granting bail without statement of reasons suff of mind,” Tred fom eo rmrder case une 4 RanDoss. Sa of Tan Nad, 1993 CxLJ 2147 (Mad), Kahn Singh. Sate of Madiya Pradesh, 1989 C+L1 512 (MIP), Oe lama. Seo Gujarat, 1989 Cr] 468 (Gu, Mh poe Maa Anm . Gavi, 1990 CHL 2171 (Bom), 7 pena The Sa of UP, 1978 CLT 1090, 29 oS ah 91 CLI); Basi» State of Haryana, 198 CL 2. Taj Khan, Sate of Raj Y Moony Sf ita, 1983. CaL 1518 (aj, ; 1 Kehna Pash, STs Ca AIR 1978 SC 1594 5 jul 1985 CL. 1857: AIR 1985 SC 1666, Cal} 474: 1989 ANLI 85, \ Te LSC 340 : (2011) 1 SCC 784 : 2011 CHL ¥. State of Gujarat, AIR 2008 SC 1134:CO Provisions as 10 Bail and Bonds be 3 ty of State—Bail shoulg fenerally be . 0 tn Si, The ed ge one) My sion of large quantity of ome have provided money ant ws 10. te them. Theit bail application was not Sneruinntt Prima facie case wae gS ce a Magistrate granted bail in a ¢ : 08 sot whe! n.inay also amount.to.aa offense: 307 IPC. hold 0 1 olding. that. the BS py a aera ould neither be fag ence ws 324 TPC, it was held that -pSrscd”” Magistrat ing OF eer ns ha enor Rue it was, c oe On DA iding Officer in his ¢ ener condoned."* Where tty, the High oe refused bail Notting towil the olve ewan nore nv) t i someti eg a ef id Te Raa ‘b? ee victim i ais? a rial Was likely he concluded shortly and Nee aes death case. , eine was not rel , she would die in judicial custody.” ing on record to pos pat rant bail in non- met grates ni! “s es eaRRdaBIE petites offences-—A Magistrate can grant “yee net ee ith sentence of death oF i plod that the accused is guilty of the jot gnishable 371) (Merely because the accuect met unless he is covered by trem Fos to © lesser offence (u/ss. 306 and outa was initially granted anticipatory or p38 f0"-2 37 when subsequenth ‘A, IPC), would not entitle him to grant pa ir ball e302) The Cour sid thal the fe involved in 8 graver aa ce Hike cus ed was ‘charged with offence u/s, eC in granting bail jth the-app i . = ws” enceinwhich-the bail is sought Generally speaking if ae w i i! i BS for imprisonment for life and death penalty and the offence is oats ribee e Court of Session, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to grant bail sed_by-th Bead rita 3 The limitations the jurisdiction of the Magistrate are evident and apparent. Assumption of entertain the application is distinguishable from the exercise of the a 5 cove) ie Seca | 2829 SCC 166, tase | * Saran oper Vel, AIR 2004 SC 4058-0004) 1 SCC.52Provisions ag to Bail and Rema nde abuse—In the al ah or in the ilgenes ar of any allegation that the accused the prosecution evidence, if released on bal gt that they were rel Qe i |, there was no reason to T offence might be committed sone the accused might be assaulted a} r i 7 ony ‘could not be curtailed? Against their person by the complainant ye ll ; pei man, sick, infirm, children below ase 0 Wer in-law was killed by the inoue pole? dave! Hw eld that mother-in-law was not ingen ; oc 85 1) of 8.4370). Cr vohitled to bail simply because of the (1) OF Seis a1 was accompanied with the re Cn UN ab-s iso for i Port Of the Civil Oat i i . Civil Sur; that the poxeanon 1" uffering from a’ serious incurable ie urgeon th: pF. wa me Court granted bail subject to certain aot a fequired specialised rains «the conditions laid down ins. 42701) are sine qua man for grant rand held that 4) are si (Sub-section (1) Proviso TL— law and other members of the enti? « xercised bY the Sessions Judge only when the proceedings come before it in in ac . It cannot exercise the powers of co OS on or otherwise. IM B56 AC al, Y=. Board. Directions issued by the Gov. i concurrence of the 1 ee rice emmment with Penile baer not confer such power on the Sessions Judge,” oe sf pie On trial—In a case involving cheating and falsification of accou! pelay mail to the tune of one crore of rupees, the accused had idee ithe trial Court was directed to complete the trial within three months failing which Jon? ‘ised WAS to be enlarged on bail if the delay was not attributable to him.* Where the the ace charged with misappropriation of Rs. 75,000 remained in custody for nine and there Was the High Court order that if the trial did not commence within six for bail could be renewed, it was held that the case for bail had been not , the prayer pee aonths: 1 Where there. yith no prospect of early hearing. it at? Wh J es that bail during the pendency obanbcal nas E The c case ess. 304B and 4984 tor dowry death and cruelty to woman with the award of seven vas uss. i ain hg fA ve \d two years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The accused had been in jail years’ an’ 1 chintamani Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 CrL1 1662 (AND: 5 Gellapudi Satyam v. State, 2002 CrLJ 762 (Thar). 4. Jeet Ram v. State of H.P., 2003 CrLJ 736 (HP). 4 Chandrawati v. State of U.P., 1992 CrL.} 3634 (All). & Sanjay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2003 CrLJ 2877 (Chh). © Dincsh MN (SP) v. State of Gujarat, AUR 2008 SC 2318 : (2008) 5 SCC 66 : 2008 Cr1.J 3008. 1. Sant Das v. State of U.P., 2003 CrLJ 3424 (All). 3 Malesh Kumar Bhawsinghka v. State of Delhi, 2000 CrLI 2786 : ST 2000 (1) SC 541 : (2000) 9 SCC 383; Vivek Kumar v. State of U.P., 2000 CrLJ'2774 : 2000 All LI 1470, the accused languished in ail for long without commencement of trial, despite the fact that the counsel suppressed certain ,, {tin the bail application, the Supreme Court ardered release 0” bail. . Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2000 SC 1945 : (2000) 9 SCC 55.I. 5 on ail [Sub-section conve on bail i he is entitled. Ht fore? nase’ of identification during the f a he facts of @ CASE: 0 ' wth the matter in a most ey Mert a racing te section ey Me ot ei ble with 1 a shall nee nom wi My an FTO Yr eli that Ee awe tel able gro xe the co-accused Was still 00 Ih ce were sil eye-withesses, Who hag; ned a specific role to him, believing that the 2nd ease jon that the accused WaS a party to a crim: ee killed through contract Killers ial irator in the remand applicati ase. Evidence showed that ion a Thus, a prima, facie case was made be ha c Q investigation was not proper.” ag «a cases [sub-section (3)|—Thi a certain mentioned in subs on aha ection, while granting b toa pe © strate nil granting bail, person, ak him held that insistence Lae ne in view of solvency sa consp} ution ¢ it was Magistrate 8.4 ers oft hich i eo ‘ders necessary, n which it © si cessary.” Hoy mnditio’ i impose 0 os ete exception father than the rule." The o ail and jncidental terms are essentially interim orders Ii, 2000 CrLJ 2452 : ATR 2000 SC 3404a rel igh v. State of MP. 2002 CrLJ 165 (MP), sken in inquiry, the deceased's brother sh i a on bail. State (CBI) v. Pal Singh, 2001 CrLJ 744 ; (2001) vering the weapon of offence, bail not to be granted forward even after confers a right upon the foie year, bail should be granted. ling of her daughter-in-law. Appeal i gan, Pra Singhal. Sate of Delhi, 1999 CrLJ 3698 : (1999) 1 SOC 168, th tonic ws 302, He was more than 70 years old, had been in jail for m yl past fs to susend sentence was pending efor the BES P finial subject to the condition that he must remain within municipal limits. — is Pratash Pande v, State of UP, (2001) 9 SCC 121 : AIR 2001 SC 35923200 ota 6, 178: 2001 (6) SCALE 20. 1 om r pera pa Ranesh Turan, AIR 1998 SC 586 : 1998 C1L 855 ee eee ate Lis SC 484 : 1972 CrLJ 298: (1972) 1 , | 1S, Valuony, State of Kerala, 1984 KLT 443, me on iProvisions as to Bail and Ronds td st Hant was accused appel 8 arrested in ¢ . ait The H was that he made an oral ae Connection mut. f J e a for long re with a murder. The ont oui Even $0 be had reine z ditional _bail.!” While granting posit. of Re. 10, was. held to rance of compromise.—The Su ne granted on the ipreme Court has been of the opinion nO" Gf the compromise between parties, OF cancelled for orruption Act.—The applicant Stee n jon of Curt said that it was not wicten i been in jail for more than a year. me @ was released on bail subjec (o",KC¢ping him as an under-trial PrGpty MOTE ar was charged with mnigect 10 certain conditions.” The former Mod ite Os. isappropriation, He was released om Bal ef N00 oa ainst detenu.—Wh stole oF jaree hee ccution did not file any chargerationer was arrested on the basis of rp. but oe even his ye for, bail Was rejected, seen Leu yet he continued to et application for bail was not justified. Se eon s of bail.—The Magi: cto” |, of term: ~ Magistrate has the oye ation cations. short of cancellation, in the earlier bail BROTH AL” effect Bit) reaarrest of Pa eee on. bail [Sub-section (5)]|—The power to order pail vests in the a granted it. But an order made by one Magistrate pool 2 jaocused person on bai pending trial can for proper reasons be cancelled by a fagistrate (© whom the case may be transferred for trial.2> Where an accused was ee or be ail for 2 non ballepls offence and subsequently the offences were converted ease O* erious ONES: it was held that the Court had power to cancel the bail and take jt mm accused into custody. k ie is sub-secti d wit rf in sions of this sub-section read with s. 482 of the Code ‘The ie High Court to give effect to any order under this Code ce eer apie of Ors of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, will give it ample oo deal effectively with such accused persons, released on bail pending appeal, powers ntinuing to commit the crimes they denied in the appeal memorandum, ir Col rn by raelves liable toze-arrest and recommittal.to custody. reir are five cases where a person granted bail may have the bail cancelled and be remitted £0 jail: @ where the person on bail, during the period of the bail, commits reeolery same offence for which he is being tried or has been convicted, and thereby ves his utter unfitness to be on bail; (ii) if he hampers the investigation as will be the case if he, when on bail, forcibly prevents the search of places under his control for the corpus delicti or other incriminating things; (iii) if he tampers with the evidence, as by ecution witnesses, interfering with the scene of offence in order to intimidating the pros . anes E remove traces or proofs of crime, etc.; (iv) if he runs away to a foreign country, or goes 16, Naeem v. Asstt, Collector of Customs, 1992 CrLJ 390 (Bom), i ichand P. Hinduja v. State, 2002 CrLJ 942 (SC). 11, Kaleem v, State, 2003 CrLJ 353 (Kant). iman Chatterjee v. Sanchita Chatterjee, AIR 2004 SC 1699 : (2004) 3 SCC 388 : 2004 CrLJ 1451. AIR 2002 SC 2338 : (2002) 10 SCC 199. Sri Ram Choubey v. State of Bihar, Jagannath Mishra v, State of Bihar, 1999 CrLJ 3526 : (1999) 1 Scale 5 (1) (SC). Madan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2002) 9 SCC 473 : JT 2002 (8) SC 219. Brijesh Singh v. State of Karnataka, 2002 CrLJ 1362 (Kant). Sadashiv, (1896) 22 Bom 549. : Enperor v. Rautmal Kanumal, (1939) 41 Bom LR 1232 : (1940) Bom 38 : AIR 1940 Bom 40. Kayan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 CrLJ 512 (MP). ene lic Prosecutor v. Williams, (1952) ILR Mad 414 : AIR 1951 Mad 1042. * a SRREBRE_ "ere is suretics; I control of his suretios; and (yy; eyo a Lipt the prosecution witnesgee Me of WY police f andy k hit , sing It—The Supreme ¢ ne omen note of subsequent evento hay of a manifest error in the matter on the election day and when d under the Constitution and w tes ge, Irrespective of different f the grant of bail, intrage o' to sig lt i he Rt ae in |ly murde 1 proceed 0 5 vs ee period when the accused m8 Wag twas Ur g and the charge-shect having been Were, of these factual details. Tamper file were two basic grounds for cancel, Wit hin by reason of Subsequent filing o¢ "Of bai! mention of it in the order for grant of wt : had been omitted in its entirety. e i The he e-shee! High Court Was set aside and quashed. The tel of bet a clled and the private respondents be re, «rejection of bail a lication, another application is : a circumstances: 7 a ;derations applicable to the grant of bail and cop consi dependent and 40 nt Overlap each ot oft deaions relevant fr the Purpose of grant of bal and eration Oe vailable on records, it 1s & duty incumbent on the High - sudden departure inthe order of grant as agains the reasons aS i month ag0- 7. ‘cations.—In the case of a person accused of in a ely the High Court on the ground that pi. 4 applic ess. The rejection of bail was confirmed by the Supreme cr inca was made within 2 short, span, of time, There. had’ bee aplicat s since then. The Supreme Court held that a fresh at The order granting bail was set aside, mun The accused was charged with non-bailable offences. He wasid during cf trial. The guarantee conferred on persons would not entitle the aggrieved person to make successive bail ground already rejected by Courts including the Court at the Apex. The higher Court or co-ordinate Bench must receive serious consideration at tertaining a bail application at a later stage when the same Court ent Ig applicati c earlier. The High Court in previous proceedings already considered cxistence of a prima facie case or legality and evidentiary value of retract co-accused. The matter of prima facie case was dealt with in one 28, Ram Govind Upadhyaya v, Sudershan Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 598 ; 2002 CrL i 2%, State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 : (2001) SCC (Cri) 1520, Febae of second application without any change circumstances was h 1 pean moans toa review of the earierjudement which s not permissibe "sei d Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh, 2002 CrLJ 1849 (SC) = AIR 2002 a1, QSC 85: 2002) SCALE 12: 2002) 3 SCC'598. : of Tamil Nadu . S.A, Raja, AIR 2005 SC 4462:: (2005) 8 SCCProvisions a4 10 Bail and Bonde Lae yl sourt also negatived the A caper Case. No fresh material harem Of the accused abenie the Suh na fact’ ication moved Come into existence new pleaded bry me. prim nail applica before the High Court within 11 dayt of J a Ne application by the Supreme Court. The High Coort ge pp whet oe he baile same two questions, namely existence of 4 ind Vs ee ad eo ‘ded a new finding without there 1 OF the retracted confession and Fecore yale ota tual basis. The order granting bail w, | 0 " il! ai il si? ict! ced very clearly showed that if he was telesed es ba he eo Ie he itnesses a bal Ene, Some of the witnesses turned ot ced riod | din : ‘im i i se tS alg wa nee j ie aneahe : ¢ successive applications, the order by which the bail was a <8 : granted 6 7 M , case accused had been in custody for a period of : J pote nat ie f the trial being concluded in near fiche wis hell ee a. Tis 9 because of the gravity of the offence and serious allegations of evidence of witnesses by which allegations were made against the with ¢v"further said that giving Prima facie findings on all the points urged The CO was permissible. The order which refused the bail to the accused was jou! ‘Supreme Court on four occasions, The still subsequent bail granted by the by Ne? ancelled by the Supreme Court by a reasoned order. There was a further as High Court without recording any fresh ground and without considering Pt jer which the bail was cancelled earlier by the Supreme Court. This was held wl ie ands on the principle, of binding nature of Supreme Court decisions, rendered in wee jolt he same parties. - es peter Court directions to administration.—In the matter of certain under-trial 4 a Supreme Court ae directions to Delhi Administration as to grant of bail set years had Biss ins then. The Supreme Court directed the police st. Tub mit a report showing the impact of the directions. ities condition for bail.—A bail order at the FIR stage that the accused should ¢ sum of Rs. 2 lacs a consequence of which was that, in default, he should wat ea endlessly was held to be improper, The allegations were u/ss. 420 and 406 ings vat offences, bail is normally granted. # bats ee jation of Bail.—Where bail was granted by one Bench of the High Court, Cancer of the bail by another co-ordinate Bench of the same Court without any elt ditional grounds, was held to be not justified. More so when the earlier order new OF oof the bail had become final and had been appealed against. Four accused of grant avicted. In appeal, bail was granted to three of them only. There was ere a wnt appeal by all of them suppressing the fact about the earlier appeal. Bail was ee to them. Order being obtained by committing a fraud on the Court, it was Lee ied” The accused arrested at a point of time when the Customs Department had teady gathered evidence it required. Bail was granted by the Magistrate but was cancelled by the Sessions Court. The cancellation order was set aside and the order of the Magistrate was confirmed. \ c 32. Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, ATR 2005 SC 921 : (2005) 2 SCC 42 : 2005 CrLJ.944. °° 3B. bid, 4M. RD. Upadhaya v. State of A.P., AIR 1999 SC 2183 : 1999 CrLJ 3499 : (1998) 5 SCC 696. 48. Sandeep Jain v. NCT of Dethi, 2000 CrLJ 807 : AIR 2000 SC 714 : (2000) 2 SCC 66. \ we ee Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 CrLJ 516 : AIR 1992 SC 474 3 (1992) 3 Supp 62, 2 Ram Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1989 C1LVNOC 157 (All)."' + Mulchand v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, 1991 CrLJ 1405 (Bom).