Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Revanna H D on 28 August, 2024 cites

Gurcharan Singh vs Gurcharan Singh on 10 May, 2016

In Gurcharan Singh case [Gurcharan Singh v. State (UT of Delhi), (1978) 1 SCC 118 : 1978 SCC (Cri) 41] this Court has succinctly explained the provision regarding cancellation of bail under the Code, culled out the differences from the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (for short "the old Code") and elucidated the position of law vis- à-vis powers of the courts granting and cancelling the bail. This Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 123-24, para 16) '16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position under Section 498CrPC of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly, under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded in somewhat different 42 language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the power of entertainment of an application for committing a person, already admitted to bail, to custody, is lifted in the new Code under Section 439(2).
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Ut Chandigarh vs Gurcharan Singh on 3 April, 2014

Under Section 439(2) of the new Code a High Court may commit a person released on bail under Chapter XXXIII by any court including the Court of Session to custody, if it thinks appropriate to do so. It must, however, be made clear that a Court of Session cannot cancel a bail which has already been granted [State (UT of Delhi) v. Gurcharan Singh, 1977 SCC OnLine Del 103] by the High Court unless new circumstances arise during the progress of the trial after an accused person has been admitted to bail by the High Court. If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arisen which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior court under Section 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the subordinate position of the Court of Session vis-à-vis the High Court.'
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1