2014 (1) TMI 1813

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly Bharat lal, Gopal and Hargyan, vide its impugned order dated 19.08.2013 may be cancelled, as the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City had committed a grave error by granting bail to the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4. Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that twice bail application of Gopal, accused-respondent No.3, herein was rejected by the High Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has further submitted that accused - Gopal had earlier approached this Court, along with one Bharat Lal, vide S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1874/2013 and a Single Bench of this Court on 20.02.2013 had declined his bail. Thereafter, Gopal had approached this Court b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not disputed that the grounds for grant of bail and grounds for cancellation are entirely different. In the case of Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in A.I.R. 1993 SC 1, where bail was granted under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C., the Apex Court has held that only on the following grounds bail can be cancelled. "Once the order of release is by fiction of law an order passed under Sections 437(1) or (2) or 439 (1) it follows as a natural consequence that the said order can be cancelled under Subsection (5) of Section 437 or Sub-section (2) of Section 439 on considerations relevant for cancellation of an order thereunder. As stated in Raghubir Singh's case [AIR 1987 SC 14....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ingh Vs. State of Bihar, reported in A.I.R. 1987 149. Counsel appearing for the petitioner while praying for cancellation of bail to the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4, has lost sight of the one vital aspect that grant of bail on merit and grant bail because of breach of Article 21 of the Constitution of India are entirely in different realm. It has been held by the Apex Court on numerous occasion that right speedy trial vests in the accused, therefore, where the Court is not able to conclude the trial at the earliest, accused cannot be kept behind the bars for a indefinite period. The criminal jurisprudence of this country recognize maxim "bail is a rule, jail is an exception". In the present case, after the respondent Nos.2 to 4 h....