Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the bail granted to the respondent for an offence under the Central Excise Act, 1944 was liable to be cancelled on the ground that the respondent was an influential accused who could obstruct investigation and had allegedly failed to comply with the Magistrate's directions.
Analysis: The alleged offence was punishable under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and carried imprisonment up to seven years. The statutory scheme under Sections 13, 19, 20 and 21 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was considered, under which an arrested person may be admitted to bail or forwarded to a Magistrate. The record also showed that the respondent had already been examined by the Central Excise Officer and that the earlier grievance regarding non-attendance had been dealt with by the Magistrate, who had granted exemption for treatment. No material was shown to establish that the respondent was abusing the liberty already granted or that detention in custody was necessary to protect the investigation.
Conclusion: The application for cancellation of bail was rejected and the order granting bail was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail already granted will not be cancelled in the absence of material showing abuse of liberty or a real likelihood of interference with investigation, even where the alleged offence is treated as serious.