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 cancellation of anticipatory bail was justified in the facts of the case where the charge of rape was added after a long delay, and whether the appellant was entitled to continue on anticipatory bail.
Analysis: The relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is grounded in the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and its grant depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The allegations relating to rape were stated to be of an old vintage, the original proceedings had long proceeded on a different charge, the additional charge under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was introduced much later, and the appellant had remained available throughout the proceedings without any allegation of absconding or tampering with evidence. In such circumstances, the seriousness of the added charge, by itself, was not treated as sufficient to deny anticipatory bail or to sustain cancellation, particularly when the matter of guilt was left for trial and the request for cancellation rested largely on issues that were not decisive at the bail stage.
Conclusion: The cancellation of anticipatory bail was unjustified and the appellant was entitled to restoration of the anticipatory bail order.