Just a moment...
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%
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 bail granted by the magistrate was liable to be set aside on the ground that the order did not discuss all cited judgments and allegedly ignored relevant circumstances, and whether the superior court could examine both the pre-bail material and post-bail conduct while considering such a challenge.
Analysis: An order granting bail may be interfered with only for compelling reasons and where the grant is shown to be manifestly illegal, unjust, improper, or vitiated by irrelevant considerations, non-application of mind, disregard of statutory bar, or gross procedural impropriety. In a challenge to the grant of bail on merits, the superior court is not confined to post-bail conduct alone and may consider the facts and circumstances existing when bail was granted as well as any subsequent conduct. However, mere absence of discussion of every cited precedent does not by itself invalidate the bail order, especially when that omission is not attributable to the accused. Interference is not warranted unless the order results in gross injustice or the accused has abused the concession of bail.
Conclusion: The challenge to the bail order failed, as no compelling ground was made out for interference.