Bail:
Complaint against accused – Alleging that documents of residential property, furnished by him as personal bond for his release on bail in previous criminal case relating to matrimonial dispute, was forged – Closure report by police – Judicial Magistrate ordered further investigation and accused was arrested – Bail denied twice – After re-investigation second report of police that no offence committed – Third bail application also denied by impugned order – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: When the closure report was filed twice, High Court ought not to have declined bail, only because trial court was yet to accept the said report.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court ought to have kept in view that ‘Bail is rule and jail is exception’. There is no gain saying that bail should not be granted or rejected in a mechanical manner as it concerns the liberty of a person. In peculiar circumstances of the present case, where closure report was filed twice, the High Court ought not to have declined bail only because the trial court was yet to accept the said report. Further, the examination of witnesses would depend upon the fate of 2nd closure report. Considering the nature of allegations attributed to the appellant and the period he has already spent in custody, he deserves to be released on bail forthwith. [Para 7] [956-C-E]
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.