Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.79 seconds)
Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar And Anr. vs Talab Haji Hussain And Ors. on 14 January, 1958 cites

Jairam Das vs Emperor on 5 February, 1945

In the former case not only has he a right to be released on bail, but he cannot be re-arrested. In the latter case he has no right to be released on bail and even if he is released on bail he is liable to be re-arrested and committed to custody. It is further pointed out that under Section 498, which confers power upon the High Court and the Court of Session to release a person on bail, Sub-section (2) has been recently enacted by the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code and that subsection confers the power upon the High Court or the Court of Session to arrest and commit to custody any person who has been admitted to bail, and it is pointed out that even when the Code was recently amended and when a seeming lacuna in Section 498 was made good by conferring the necessary power upon the High Court and the Court of Session, the Legislature did not make any similar provision under Section 496. It is also pointed out that the Privy Council in Jairam Das v. Emperor , has laid down that the provisions with regard to bail are contained in Chapter XXXIX and that Chapter is a complete and exhaustive statement of the powers of the High Court in India to grant bail, and it is therefore urged that it is not competent to the High Court to exercise any power with regard to bail which is not to be found within the four corners of Chapter XXXIX of the Criminal Procedure Code. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant has relied on the inherent power of the High Court under Section 561A and while conceding that there is no specific provision in the Code itself for the arrest of an accused person who has been released on bail, in a case where he has been accused of a bailable offence, the High Court is not helpless when confronted with a serious situation and that in a proper case the High Court could always requisition to its aid the inherent power conferred upon it by Section 561A. It is true and it is well settled that when you have a specific provision in a law of enjoining upon a Court to do something or not to do something, then the Court cannot go contrary to the mandate of the Legislature by relying upon its inherent power. But it is equally well settled that no Legislature and no law can contemplate every situation and every eventuality and the best drafted of laws might have some lacuna. It is to meet with those unforeseen cases and situations and to make good the lacuna if they exist that a Code of law reserves to a Court inherent powers.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Bachchan Lal vs The State on 19 October, 1956

7. But there are two judgments of the Allahabad High Court which leave no doubt that at least that High Court has taken the view that in matters of bail the High Court has inherent jurisdiction under Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code. The first case which was referred to at the Bar is Bachchu Lal v. State, . It is again true that this was a case of a non-bailable offence, but the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the Sessions Judge who had cancelled the ball bond had no jurisdiction to do so under Clause (5) of Section 497. We are not concerned for the moment in considering whether that view of the Allahabad High Court, with respect, is correct or not. But having held that such an order could not be made by the Sessions Court, the High Court proceeded under Section 561A to cancel the bail bond and directing that the accused should be kept in custody. Therefore, there is a direct authority for the proposition that where statutory provision is lacking in the Criminal Procedure Code conferring power upon the High Court to cancel bail, the High Court can in proper cases cancel bail under Section 561A.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - R Dayal - Full Document
1   2 Next