Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (1.12 seconds)The Arms Act, 1959
Neeru Yadav vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 29 September, 2015
The perusal of aforesaid case law reveals that a very strict view against the accused on the point of bail has been adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the reason of the accused having a shady past blemished with criminal antecedents. The Apex Court therefore, had proceeded to cancel the bail that had already been granted by the High court on the ground of parity with co-accused without giving due consideration to the criminal history of the accused. It may not be out of place to mention here that in the case of Neeru Yadav (supra) the accused was said to have a criminal history of only seven cases out of which ofcourse two cases were that of murder. But even a fleeting glance on the criminal history of the present accused would show that he appears to have been involved in almost similar kind of offences of committing lurking trespass, of committing theft and possessing theft property in such large number that he may be termed to be an incorrigible offender beyond all possibilities of reformation or corrective redemption. Even the present case at hand, in which the applicant seeks his bail relates to the offence under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C. and the contents of the F.I.R. would show that at the time of incident the informant's family had gone to attend the marriage and the informant had also gone to Lucknow in connection with some matter and after having returned from there, he found his gate closed from inside which aroused suspicion. Somehow he managed his entry in his house from the roof of his neighbour and then he found that the window had been broken and the articles were thrown hither and thither, safe was found opened and it was discovered that the licensee pistol and a lot of gold jewellery and cash had been stolen away. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and on being questioned by the police, he spilled the beans and made shocking disclosures about the enormous number of crimes of almost similar nature committed by him. Huge amount of recoveries were effected at his instance, the details of which have been narrated in Annexure No.3 which is memo of recovery and which relate to large number of thefts committed by him. Shocking number of thefts committed by the applicant and the huge number of consequential recoveries of highly valuable jewellery of gold and silver and cash does not leave any doubt at least at this stage that there is no dearth of incriminating evidence available against him pointing towards his guilt and guilty mind. Prima facie at this stage, unless the conclusion of the trial shows otherwise later on, the accused appears to be a menace to the society and a peril overhanging all the citizens who ceaselessly toil to earn an honest living. The recognized considerations germane on the point to decide whether an accused ought to be released on bail or not also includes the probability of the accused absconding or fleeing from the course of justice, if released on bail. His character, behaviour, means, position and standing in the society are also relevant. The likelihood of the offence being repeated has also been recognized by the Hon'ble Apex Court as a relevant consideration. The enormous recoveries of gold and silver articles and also that of cash at the instance of applicant cannot be said to be either frivolous or planted at least at this stage. It is not difficult to see that the involvement of applicant in different criminal offences over a period of time speaks about the delinquency and depraved nature of the offender and in the considered opinion of this Court with such long criminal history in the background, it does not appear judicially prudent to release the applicant on bail.
Prakash Kadam & Etc. Etc vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr on 13 May, 2011
5. At the outset we are obliged to clarify that it is not an appeal seeking cancellation of bail in the strictest sense. It actually calls in question the legal pregnability of the order passed by the High Court. The prayer for cancellation of bail is not sought on the foundation of any kind of supervening circumstances or breach of any condition imposed by the High Court. The basic assail is to the manner in which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 439 CrPC while admitting the accused to bail. To clarify, if it has failed to take into consideration the relevant material factors, it would make the order absolutely perverse and totally indefensible. That is why there is a difference between cancellation of an order of bail and legal sustainability of an order granting bail. [See State of U.P. v. Marmani Tripathi[1], Puran v. Rambilas[2], Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujrat[3], and Prakash Kadam v. Ramprasad Vishwanah Gupta[4].]
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010
In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [8], while dealing with the court's role to interfere with the power of the High Court to grant bail to the accused, the Court observed that it is to be seen that the High Court has exercised this discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in catena of judgments on that point. The Court proceeded to enumerate the factors:-