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 granting bail suffered from perversity or illegality so as to warrant cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and the order granting bail can be interfered with only if it is shown to be vitiated by serious infirmity, perversity, or abuse of discretion. The material before the Court showed that the respondent had remained in custody for the maximum permissible period, had cooperated with the investigation, and the trial court had imposed stringent conditions to protect the investigation. No material was shown to establish any post-bail attempt to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence, and the alleged forgery was stated to have occurred prior to arrest. In these circumstances, no supervening circumstance or perversity in the bail order was made out.
Conclusion: The prayer for cancellation of bail was rejected, and the respondent was allowed to retain bail.
Ratio Decidendi: Bail once granted is not to be cancelled mechanically; cancellation is justified only where cogent and overwhelming circumstances show perversity in the grant of bail, abuse of concession, or supervening conduct that threatens a fair trial.