Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2022 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (1) TMI 1394 - HC - Indian LawsCancellation of anticipatory Bail granted - Domestic violence - stridhan articles taken away by inlaws - case of petitioner is that the bank lockers have been operated after the grant of anticipatory bail, and therefore, tampering with the evidence i.e. stridhan and jewelry etc., would be a ground for cancellation of bail which should ordinarily be moved before the court granting bail. HELD THAT:- There is a significant difference between an order rejecting an application for bail and an order for cancellation of bail. An order rejecting a plea for bail in non-bailable offences is in the discretionary domain of the Court and such a case can be decided without delving into details, it can be rejected simpliciter on the gravity of the offence and the perception that liberty, if granted, will be abused by the accused. Whereas in the case of cancellation, the Court is called upon to extinguish the liberty that has been formerly granted. A Court must tread with utmost circumspection, and only after an in-depth examination of the situation and new emergent facts and on finding supervening circumstances and overwhelming evidence that the accused has been abusing the liberty granted to him by the Court, should the Court then exercise its jurisdiction in seizing the liberty of an accused undertrial. Another reason for the Court to be more circumspect in setting aside an order granting bail is that, it involves review of a well-considered, reasoned judicial order granting bail. Personal liberty is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms. An application for cancellation of bail is different from an application for grant of bail. While dealing with an application challenging the order granting bail, the Court has to see whether the order granting bail was vitiated by any serious infirmity or not. Ordinarily, High Court will not exercise its jurisdiction to interfere with an order of bail granted by Special Judge in favour of the accused if there is no serious infirmity in it. The order of the learned ASJ is a well reasoned order which does not require any interference from this Court. This Court finds no merit in the arguments of the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly dismissed.
|