Once liberty is given to accused to move bail after a fixed period of time, he should not be granted permanent bail at any earlier moment

Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to an accused who was earlier given liberty to move bail application after 6 months but HC given him permanent bail prior to that period.

A bench of Justice Gupta and Justice Kant has passed the order in the case titled as TARA DEVI vs BHIKAR RAI @ BHIKARI RAI on 04.10.2019.

Supreme Court observed “The first bail application of the respondent no.1 was rejected on 17.02.2018 and liberty was given to the appellant to make a prayer for renewal, if the trial is not concluded within six months. This six months were to end on 07.08.2018. However, prior to that the respondent no.1 filed a bail application before the High Court on the ground that though this period of six months has not elapsed, he is seeking provisional bail for treatment of his wife, who had been referred to AIIMS, New Delhi for some neuro problem. Considering the prayer, the bail was granted. But unfortunately High Court did not grant provisional bail as prayed for a limited period but granted permanent bail”.

It further observed “The record produced before us also shows that the respondent no.1, who got bail sometime in June 18, 2018 did not appear in the Court for more than a year. It was only after notice was issued in the present petition that the respondent no.1 appeared before the Trial Court. It is now urged that the appellant was not served with summons. We are unable to understand or appreciate this argument. In a matter where a person against whom a criminal case is pending, obtains and furnishes bail, he cannot be permitted to urge that he is not aware of the dates in the criminal case against him”.

Supreme Court then cancelled the bail saying “The respondent no.1 is also involved in various other criminal cases and all those facts were not taken into consideration by the High Court and only in view of the alleged illness of his wife he was granted interim bail. It is apparent that the respondent no.1 has misused the liberty granted to him. Therefore, we cancel the bail of the appellant. Appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to the concerned jail authorities”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *