1994 (4) TMI 405 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order setting aside Magisterial Custody Remand and bail order.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a challenge to an order setting aside Magisterial Custody Remand and bail granted to the accused. The complainant alleged offenses under sections 420, 468, 471, and 477A of the Indian Penal Code against the accused, who was the proprietor of a company. The accused was arrested, and the Magistrate granted Magisterial Custody Remand for a fortnight and subsequently granted bail on the same day upon a bail petition. The State challenged these orders in Criminal Revision No. 103/94, leading to the Additional Sessions Judge setting aside the bail and remanding the accused to police custody.

The first issue raised was the maintainability of the revision petition before the Sessions Court under section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defense argued that the revision was barred as it was against an interlocutory order of granting bail. Citing precedents, the court held that orders of bail are interlocutory in nature and thus not subject to revision under section 397(2), Cr. P.C. Since the State did not seek cancellation of bail before the Magistrate or Sessions Court, the revision was deemed unmaintainable.

The second issue pertained to the cancellation of bail and remanding the accused to police custody under section 439(2) of the Cr. P.C. The court emphasized that for bail cancellation, there must be overwhelming evidence of interference with justice or tampering with witnesses. Relying on previous judgments, the court highlighted the necessity of supervening circumstances to justify bail cancellation. In this case, the State failed to establish any such circumstances, and the accused had complied with bail conditions. As a result, the court found no grounds for bail cancellation and reinstated the original bail order.

In conclusion, the court allowed the Criminal Revision Application, quashed the impugned order of the Additional Sessions Judge, and restored the bail order granted by the Magistrate. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of adhering to legal principles and evidentiary requirements for bail cancellation, emphasizing the need for supervening circumstances to justify such actions.