Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. While making a general statement of law that the accused is innocent, till proved guilty, the statutory provisions of relevant Act, like Section 29 of the POCSO Act, have to be taken into consideration which provides for presumption as to commission of any offence under Sections 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the Act.

(See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 22)

collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to .

the collective and to the societal order. Accent on individual liberty cannot be pyramided to that extent which would bring chaos and anarchy to a society. A society expects responsibility and accountability from its members, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible. Therefore, when an individual behaves in a disharmonious manner ushering in the disorderly things which the society disapproves, the legal consequences are bound to follow. At that stage, the court has a duty. It cannot abandon its sacrosanct obligation and pass an order at its own whim or caprice. It has to be guided by the established parameters of law. (See Neeru Yadav versus State of U.P., (2014) 6 SCC 508, para 16; Rakesh Ranjan Yadav versus CBI, (2007) 1 SCC 70, para 16; Masroor versus State of U.P., (2009) 14 SCC 286, para 15; Ash Mohammad versus Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu and another, (2012) 9 SCC 446, paras 10 & 25; Chandrakeshwar Prasad alias Chandu Babu versus State of Bihar and another, (2016) 9 SCC 443 paras 10, 11)

12. At the time of assigning reasons in order to grant/refuse bail, there should not be discussion of merits and demerits of the evidence. (See State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, (2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

13. Giving reasons is different from discussing evidence/merits and demerits. (See Puran versus CRMPM No.1453,1454,1455,1512,1712 and 1934 of 2020 ...16...

Rambilas and another, (2001) 6 SCC 338, para 8; State of Bihar versus Rajballav Prasad alias Rajballav Prasad Yadav alias Rajballabh Yadav, .

(2017) 2 SCC 178, para 15)

14. Under Section 439 CrPC, the Sessions Court and the High Court has concurrent jurisdiction to grant bail. Therefore, an application filed before the High Court under Section 439 CPC, after rejection of an application filed before Sessions Court under the said Section, is definitely a successive application and is not a revision or appeal against rejection of bail application by the Sessions Court.