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 bail orders granted to the accused in a grave narcotics smuggling case were liable to be cancelled in exercise of the High Court's inherent and supervisory jurisdiction.
Analysis: The accused were found to be involved in a well-organised and coordinated brown sugar smuggling racket, with material indicating prior and planned trafficking activity, use of concealed packaging, specialised equipment, and a strong apprehension that they might abscond or continue similar offences if left on bail. The grant of bail by the Magistrate was found to have been made without sufficient circumspection in the context of the seriousness of the offence, the need for further investigation in a conspiracy case, and the statutory scheme governing cancellation of bail. In these circumstances, the High Court exercised its powers under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to cancel the bail orders.
Conclusion: The bail orders were cancelled and the accused were directed to be taken into custody.
Ratio Decidendi: In a grave and organised narcotics trafficking case, where there is a well-founded apprehension of absconding or repetition of the offence and the initial grant of bail was not made with due caution, the High Court may cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.