TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether a petition presented by advocates seeking cancellation of bail and invoking suo motu action of the High Court was maintainable; (ii) whether the High Court could refuse to consider such a petition on the ground that only the State, the investigating agency, or the aggrieved party could move for cancellation of bail, and whether the Chief Justice's power to place the matter before a Division Bench was open to question.
Issue (i): whether a petition presented by advocates seeking cancellation of bail and invoking suo motu action of the High Court was maintainable.
Analysis: The statutory power to direct arrest and commit to custody under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is a power of the High Court or Court of Session. The provision does not confine the invocation of that power to the State, the investigating agency, or a public prosecutor. A person having concern in the matter may bring the circumstances to the notice of the High Court and request it to consider exercising the power suo motu. If the High Court finds no merit, it may reject the request, but it cannot decline to entertain it solely on the ground that the petition is not maintainable.
Conclusion: The petition was maintainable and the contrary view was incorrect.
Issue (ii): whether the High Court could refuse to consider such a petition on the ground that only the State, the investigating agency, or the aggrieved party could move for cancellation of bail, and whether the Chief Justice's power to place the matter before a Division Bench was open to question.
Analysis: The Chief Justice has the prerogative to distribute the business of the High Court and constitute Benches. The Division Bench erred in treating the petitions as wholly incompetent and in refusing to consider them on merits. The proper course was to examine whether the facts justified exercise of the power under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and then decide the matter according to law.
Conclusion: The High Court should have considered the petitions on merits and the refusal on maintainability was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitions were directed to be heard afresh by the High Court in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court's power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be brought to its notice by any concerned person, and a petition seeking suo motu exercise of that power cannot be rejected as non-maintainable merely because it is not presented by the State or the aggrieved party.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
