Just a moment...
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 order cancelling bail was justified in the facts where the grant of bail was made after earlier bail refusals and without due regard to the governing parameters for bail.
Analysis: The appellants had earlier been denied bail, including by the Supreme Court, and the later grant of bail was made chiefly on the ground that the charge-sheet had been filed. Filing of the charge-sheet, by itself, does not dilute the prosecution case or constitute a sufficient change in circumstance. Bail cannot be granted mechanically by relying on general observations about the presumption of innocence or liberty without applying the settled factors governing bail, such as the nature and gravity of the accusation, the supporting evidence, the possibility of influencing witnesses, and the larger interests of justice. The order granting bail was found to have ignored relevant material and to have proceeded on irrelevant considerations, making it vulnerable to interference.
Conclusion: The cancellation of bail was upheld and the grant of bail was held to be unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: An order granting bail is liable to be set aside where the court ignores relevant considerations, relies on irrelevant factors, and grants liberty without proper application of the settled bail parameters, particularly after earlier refusals on the same factual basis.