Court Orders Immediate Release After Police's Illegal Re-arrest Breaches Bail Terms; Travel Restrictions Unnecessary.

The court quashed the impugned order and directed the immediate release of the petitioner, emphasizing that the police's re-arrest based on a Red Corner notice breached the bail order granted by the ASJ without travel restrictions. The court found the MM's rejection of the bail application, citing travel permission, unjustified and illegal.

---

---

Issues:
1. Breach of judicial orders by police authorities regarding bail conditions and re-arrest based on a Red Corner notice.
2. Legality of re-arresting a petitioner granted bail without conditions restricting foreign travel.
3. Error in rejecting bail application based on the need for prior permission to travel abroad.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the petitioner, accused in a criminal case, who was granted bail without travel restrictions by the Additional Sessions Judge. The police re-arrested the petitioner based on a Red Corner notice, despite the bail order. The court noted the breach of the bail order by the police and the error in re-arresting the petitioner. The Red Corner notice was related to the same crime, and the court emphasized that it cannot be used to re-arrest the petitioner after bail was granted. The judgment highlighted the police's disregard for the judicial order by re-arresting the petitioner based on the notice.

Moreover, the court criticized the Metropolitan Magistrate for rejecting the bail application, citing the need for prior permission to travel abroad. The judgment emphasized that no such restriction was imposed by the superior court while granting bail. The court found the rejection of the bail application based on the travel restriction unjustified and illegal. It concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable and quashed it. The petitioner was directed to be released immediately based on the bail granted earlier by the Additional Sessions Judge without any travel restrictions.

In summary, the judgment addressed the breach of judicial orders by the police, the legality of re-arresting the petitioner granted bail, and the error in rejecting the bail application due to the absence of travel restrictions. The court emphasized the importance of upholding judicial orders and ensuring that bail conditions are not violated without proper legal grounds. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal aspects involved in the case and highlighted the need for adherence to legal procedures and principles in such matters.

---