Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News

Search ...

!
"
#
$

Home » Case Briefs » Cancellation Of Bail V. Rejection Of Bail: Delhi Hc Explains When A Court Can Seize Liberty Of

An Accused Undertrial

Cancellation of Bail v.
Rejection of Bail: Delhi HC
explains when a Court can
seize liberty of an accused
undertrial
CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Published on January 7, 2022 – By Devika Sharma

Leave a comment

! " % $

Tweet

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while explaining the facets of cancellation
of bail and rejection of an application for bail, made an observation that,

Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms.

Once granted to an accused pending completion of the Trial, it
must only be retracted in the face of grave and exacerbating
circumstances.
 An application was filed under Section 439(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read
with Section 482 CrPC for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 2
to 5 passed by the Patiala House Court for the offence under Sections 354, 354A,
354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Complainant had given a complaint against her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-
law for offences under Sections 354, 354A, 354B, 406, 498A, 506, 509, 34 IPC.
Apprehending arrest, respondents filed an application under Section 438 CrPC seeking
a grant of anticipatory bail.
Additional Sessions Judge found that the grievance of the complainant, that the matter
had not been investigated fairly or that the investigating agencies acted in connivance
with the accused could be addressed by moving the Metropolitan Magistrate and it is for
the Metropolitan Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
The above-said order had been assailed by the complainant.
Trial Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused after considering the statements of
the accused. Status Report noted that the respondents had joined the investigation and
were cooperative, both before and after being granted protection from arrest by the Trial
Court.

Difference between: Rejection of application for Bail v. Cancellation of

Bail

Rejection of application for Bail Cancellation of Bail

An order rejecting a plea for bail in non- In the case of cancellation, the Court is
bailable offences is in the discretionary called upon to extinguish the liberty that has
domain of the Court and such a case can be been formerly granted.
decided without delving into details, it can be
rejected simpliciter on the gravity of the
offence and the perception that liberty, if
granted, will be abused by the accused.

When can a Court seize the liberty of an accused undertrial?

:
 Stating that a Court must tread with the utmost circumspection, and only after an in-
depth examination of the situation and new emergent facts and on finding supervening
circumstances and overwhelming evidence that the accused has been abusing the
liberty granted to him by the Court, Bench explained when a Court can exercise its
jurisdiction in seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial.
Supreme Court in the decisions of Delhi Admn. V. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411
and Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, expounded the position in law
vis a vis cancellation of bail.
The power conferred under Section 439(2) CrPC has to be
exercised in a discreet fashion, without dwelling on the merits of
whether bail should have been granted or not and only upon
viewing the subsequent conduct of an accused. The power is
coupled with the reserve and caution, akin to the usage of the High
Court’s inherent powers given under Section 482 CrPC.
Application for Cancellation of Bail and Grant of bail are different from each other,
Bench added that High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of
bail granted by Special Judge if there is no serious infirmity in it.
In the present matter, Court found the order of the ASJ to be well reasoned requiring no
interference.
Lastly, the Court dismissed the petition noting that Court has not made any observation
on the nature/manner of investigation, and if an application challenging the
NAVIGATION
nature/manner of investigation is filed by the complainant, the Trial Court is requested to
consider the same. [Charu Soneja v. State (NCT of Delhi), Crl MC No. 2050 of 2021,
decided on 3-1-2022]

Advocates before the Court:

For the Petitioner: Mr K. K. Manan, Senior Advocate with Ms Uditi Bali and Ms Komal
Vashist, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State with SI Ravinder Kumar, PS
Naraina Ms Kamlesh Mahajan, Advocate for R-2 to R-5
:
 Tweet

Share this:

! " # $ % & ' ( !"#$

Related

Anticipatory bail to an HP HC | Court discusses Triple Talaq| No bar on

absconder? Supreme Court
says no!
October 25, 2021
In "Case Briefs"
legal position of anticipatory
bail in cases where accused
is a ‘proclaimed offender’;
Petition allowed
October 28, 2020
In "Case Briefs"
granting anticipatory bail for
an offence committed under
the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on
Marriage) Act, 2019:
Supreme Court
December 31, 2020
In "Case Briefs"

TAGGED WITH: anticipatory bail, Arrest, Bail, Cancellation of Bail, Jurisdiction, law, Legal
News, Legal Updates, personal liberty, section 482 crpc, Undertrial

Written by Devika Sharma

Senior Editorial Assistant (Legal)

PREVIOUS STORY
:
 Can Section 12(5) of Arbitration Amendment Act, 2015 be invoked retrospectively? Supreme Court
answers

NEXT STORY
Cabinet approves MoU between India and Turkmenistan on cooperation in the field of Disaster
Management

WE RECOMMEND

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Ker HC | Applicability of GST to amount collected by vehicle

dealers, acting as agents of State, from purchasers – prima
facie issue requiring deeper adjudication
:
 CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Raj HC | State Government directed to appoint the

Chairperson and the Members of the Rajasthan State
Commission for Women

CASE BRIEFS FOREIGN COURTS

Concept of ‘holding in trust’ cannot pass from one person

to another
:
 JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Your email address will not be published.

Comment *

Name

Email

Website

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

POST COMMENT

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

TRANSLATE

Select Language

Powered by Translate
:
 POPULAR ON SCC ONLINE BLOG

CASE BRIEFS SUPREME COURT

Bank not a trustee of money deposited by Customers; Supreme Court holds the
relationship between customer and Bank is one of a creditor and a debtor and not
of a trustee

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Daughter-in-law claims right of residence in late husband’s mothers’ property
under the head ‘Shared Household’: Mother-in-law approaches Del HC seeking
eviction of daughter-in-law | Read what HC says

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Eviction of tenant, serving of notice by modes laid under S. 106 of Transfer of
Property Act: Bom HC discusses all [Detailed report]

CASE BRIEFS SUPREME COURT

Consumer Protection| Can written statement be accepted beyond 45 days? SC
settles pre and post New India Assurance Company Verdict conundrum once and
for all

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Dishonour of Cheque | Is it mandatory for trial court to award interim
compensation under S. 143-A NI Act on mere invocation thereof? Del HC decides
whether S. 143-A is directory or mandatory?

MOST COMMENTED

LEGISLATION UPDATES STATUTES/BILLS/ORDINANCES

Draft Notaries (Amendment) Bill issued for public consultation

CASE BRIEFS SUPREME COURT

Bank not a trustee of money deposited by Customers; Supreme Court holds the
relationship between customer and Bank is one of a creditor and a debtor and not
of a trustee

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

:
 Dishonour of Cheque | Is it mandatory for trial court to award interim
compensation under S. 143-A NI Act on mere invocation thereof? Del HC decides
whether S. 143-A is directory or mandatory?

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Clarified | Difference between ‘FIR’ & ‘Zero FIR’: Woman alleged to have been kept
as a hostage and repetitively raped, approached police station but PS GTB
Enclave denied filing an FIR || Read Del HC’s decision

CASE BRIEFS HIGH COURTS

Daughters as Co-parceners | S. 6 of Hindu Succession Act prevails over S. 29-A
inserted by Maharashtra Amendment; wasn’t necessary for Parliament to repeal S.
29-A: Bom HC

TAGS

#SCC Aadhaar Allahabad High Court Appointment Arbitration Bail Bombay High Court

Cases Reported CBI Compensation Conviction Corona Virus Coronavirus COVID-19

Cruelty Delhi High Court Dishonour Of Cheque Divorce Evidence FIR GST

High Court IBC Interpretation Investigation Judges Jurisdiction Kerala High Court Law

Legal News Lockdown Madras High Court Maintenance Murder NCLAT NHRC Rape

SEBI Section 125 CrPC Section 138 NI Act Section 482 Crpc Sentence Supreme Court

Supreme Court Cases Wife

Disclaimer : The content of this Blog are for informational purposes only and for the
reader's personal non-commercial use. The views expressed are not the personal views
of EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. and do not constitute legal advice. The contents are
intended, but not guaranteed, to be correct, complete, or up to date. EBC Publishing
Pvt. Ltd. disclaims all liability to any person for any loss or damage caused by errors or
omissions, whether arising from negligence, accident or any other cause.
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved.
:
: