Bail –Non-consideration of relevant factors– Penal Code, 1860 – ss.409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B –Commercial transaction – Respondent no.2-accused granted bail by High Court– Correctness of – On appeal, held:While releasing Respondent no.2 on bail, the High Court has not at all considered the relevant factors including the nature and gravity of accusation;serious allegations of siphoning off the huge amount, the modus operandi and the manner in which the offences were committed through shell companies and creating false/forged documents and/or misusing documents of the employees and showing them as Directors of the fake and shell companies –High Court has also not taken into consideration the status report filed by the I.O. detailing how systematically the accused have committed the offence and misappropriated the huge sum through shell companies – High Court did not exercise the jurisdiction judiciously and granted the bail mechanically by observing that the case arises out of a commercial transaction – Impugned order set aside – Respondent no.2 to surrender.
Bail – Cancellation of – Duty of appellate court – Plea of accused that after being released on bail there are no allegations of misusing the liberty and thus the bail may not be cancelled – Held: There is no absolute proposition of law that once the bail is granted by the High Court, in absence of any allegation of misuse of liberty and/or breach of any of the conditions of the bail, the bail cannot be set aside when grant of bail is itself subject matter of challenge in appeal/revision – Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at an initial stage and cancellation of bail so granted has to be dealt with and considered on different basis and that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail already granted – Thus, on very cogent and overwhelming circumstances the bail can be cancelled –Where a Court while considering an application for bail fails to consider the relevant factors, an Appellate Court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail – Appellate Court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or a prima facie view from the evidence available on record.
Bail – Grant of – Relevant factors to be considered – Discussed.
Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. (2020) 11 SCC 648; Gurcharan Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) (1978)
1 SCC 118 : [1978] 2 SCR 358; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165; Neeru Yadav vs. State of UP & Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802; Anil Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2018) 12 SCC 129 : [2017] 11 SCR 195; Prahlad Singh Bhati vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 280 : [2001] 2 SCR 684; Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar alias Polia and Another (2020) 2 SCC 118 : [2019] 14 SCR 529 – relied on. Dolat Ram vs. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; X vs. State of Telangana (2018)
16 SCC 511 : [2018] 4 SCR 466 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.