Accused's Bail Cancelled for Non-Compliance

The court canceled the bail granted to the accused due to repeated absences and non-compliance with bail conditions. The decision in Criminal Revision Application No. 433 of 1982 allowed the cancellation of bail, emphasizing the accused's duty to cooperate for a fair trial. Consequently, Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1982, seeking relaxation of bail conditions, was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Severity of bail conditions.
2. Legitimacy of granting bail to the concerned accused.
3. Compliance with bail bond conditions.
4. Applicability of old and new Criminal Procedure Codes.
5. Authority of the court to cancel bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Severity of Bail Conditions:
In Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1982, the conditions imposed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, specifically the requirement of two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, were challenged as being too severe. The petitioner requested relaxation of these conditions.

2. Legitimacy of Granting Bail to the Concerned Accused:
The second petition, Criminal Revision Application No. 433 of 1982, was filed by the original complainant, challenging the decision to grant bail to the concerned accused. The complainant argued that the accused's persistent absence had delayed the trial for seven years, and thus, granting bail was erroneous.

3. Compliance with Bail Bond Conditions:
The court noted that the concerned accused had a history of non-compliance with bail conditions, repeatedly failing to appear in court, which necessitated the issuance of multiple non-bailable warrants. Despite the accused's arguments that his absences were due to circumstances beyond his control, such as detention under COFEPOSA and legal proceedings in other courts, the court emphasized the accused's duty to remain present and communicate with his advocate.

4. Applicability of Old and New Criminal Procedure Codes:
The defense argued that the provisions of the old Criminal Procedure Code should apply since the complaint was filed before the new code came into force. However, the court clarified that procedural provisions do not confer vested rights and that the new code's provisions, including Section 436(2), which allows the court to refuse bail if the accused fails to comply with bail bond conditions, were applicable.

5. Authority of the Court to Cancel Bail:
The court examined its inherent powers under Section 482 of the new Criminal Procedure Code, analogous to Section 561-A of the old code, to ensure a fair trial. It was determined that the court could cancel bail if the accused's actions impeded the trial process. The court referenced precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Modhkar, which upheld the court's authority to cancel bail to ensure the accused's availability for trial.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the concerned accused's repeated absences and failure to comply with bail conditions warranted the cancellation of bail. Therefore, Criminal Revision Application No. 433 of 1982 was allowed, and the bail order was canceled. Consequently, Criminal Revision Application No. 432 of 1982, which sought relaxation of bail conditions, was dismissed as moot. The court emphasized the need for the accused to cooperate to ensure a smooth and expeditious trial.

---