Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Virupakshappa Gouda And Another vs The State Of Karnataka And Another on 28 March, 2017
The decision of this Court in Prasanta has been consistently followed by this
Court in Ash Mohammad v Shiv Raj Singh,7 Ranjit Singh v State of Madhya
Pradesh8, Neeru Yadav v State of U.P.9, Virupakshappa Gouda v State of
Karnataka10, and State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra11.
15 The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing
the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an
7
(2012) 9 SCC 446
8
(2013) 16 SCC 797
9
(2014) 16 SCC 508
10
(2017) 5 SCC 406
11
(2018) 10 SCC 516
9
assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an
order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or
arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the
order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an
application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the
existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a
person to whom bail has been granted.
The State Of Orissa vs Mahimananda Mishra on 18 September, 2018
The decision of this Court in Prasanta has been consistently followed by this
Court in Ash Mohammad v Shiv Raj Singh,7 Ranjit Singh v State of Madhya
Pradesh8, Neeru Yadav v State of U.P.9, Virupakshappa Gouda v State of
Karnataka10, and State of Orissa v Mahimananda Mishra11.
15 The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing
the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an
7
(2012) 9 SCC 446
8
(2013) 16 SCC 797
9
(2014) 16 SCC 508
10
(2017) 5 SCC 406
11
(2018) 10 SCC 516
9
assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an
order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or
arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the
order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an
application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the
existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a
person to whom bail has been granted.
Neeru Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 29 September, 2015
In Neeru Yadav v State of Uttar
Pradesh,12 the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against
the order of the High Court, a two judge Bench of this Court surveyed the
precedent on the principles that guide the grant of bail. Justice Dipak Misra (as
the learned Chief Justice then was) held:
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr on 18 January, 2005
23 Merely recording ―having perused the record‖ and ―on the facts and
circumstances of the case‖ does not sub-serve the purpose of a reasoned judicial
order. It is a fundamental premise of open justice, to which our judicial system is
committed, that factors which have weighed in the mind of the judge in the
rejection or the grant of bail are recorded in the order passed. Open justice is
premised on the notion that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly
and undoubtedly be seen to be done. The duty of judges to give reasoned
decisions lies at the heart of this commitment. Questions of the grant of bail
concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as the
interests of the criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit crimes
are not afforded the opportunity to obstruct justice. Judges are duty bound to
explain the basis on which they have arrived at a conclusion.
14
24 In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan13, a two judge Bench of this
Court was required to assess the correctness of a decision of a High Court
enlarging the accused on bail. Justice Santosh Hegde, speaking for the Court,
discussed the law on the grant of bail in non-bailable offences and held: