Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

Raghav Ram Vs State of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home… — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the applicant: the bail cancellation application was dismissed. However, the Trial Court was directed to take further suitable action for the presence of the accused-respondent before it and to issue suitable process which would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the facility of bail granted to the accused-respondent vide order dated 06.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3433 of 2022 should be cancelled under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., in view of his non-appearance before the Trial Court despite coercive process. +1 more

Court's answer

Since a non-bailable warrant has already been issued by the Trial Court against the accused-respondent, the Court finds no substance in the bail cancellation application and dismisses it.

Ratio / Principle

Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. empowers both the Hon'ble High Court and the Court of Sessions to direct that a person released on bail be arrested and committed to custody; it is not only the High Court that can act under that provision.

Key takeaways

It is of no significance that the bail order was passed by the High Court: it would always be open to the Trial Court to take coercive action against an accused who has been granted bail by the High Court if the conditions subject to which bail was extended are not being adhered to or complied with.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail cancellation under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. — Informant/applicant sought cancellation of bail granted by the High Court (Lucknow Bench) to the accused-respondent vide order dated 06.04.2022 in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3433 of 2022, alleging non-appearance of the accused before the Trial Court despite coercive process and violation of bail conditions. The learned A.G.A. opposed, pointing out that the Trial Court had already issued a non-bailable warrant. Held: Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. empowers both the High Court and the Court of Sessions to direct arrest of a person released on bail; it is always open to the Trial Court to take coercive action against an accused even where bail was granted by the High Court, if the bail conditions are not complied with. A non-bailable warrant having already been issued by the Trial Court, no substance was found in the application and it was dismissed, with a direction to the Trial Court to take further suitable action to secure the presence of the accused-respondent and issue suitable process.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:11267

Court No. - 15

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL CANCELLATION APPLICATION No. - 24 of 2024

Applicant :- Raghav Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the informant/applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

This bail cancellation application has been moved by the informant/applicant - Raghav Ram, requesting to cancel the facility of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 06.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3433 of 2022.

Learned counsel for the informant/ applicant submits that the accused/ respondent is not appearing before the Trial Court and despite coercive process has been issued against him, the same is not being served/ executed by the police and in this way, the conditions, subject to which the facility of bail was granted to the accused- respondent, have been violated and the facility of bail granted to the accused-respondent vide order dated 06.04.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3433 of 2022 be cancelled.

Learned A.G.A., on the other hand, submits that the facility of bail was extended to the accused-respondent subject to the conditions mentioned in the same order and the Trial Court, noticing that the accused- respondent is not appearing, has already issued non-bailable warrant against the accusedrespondent and therefore, the applicant/ informant is not having any locus to move this Court especially when the Trial Court itself has issued non-bailable warrant for the arrest of the accused- respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is reflected that the instant application for

cancellation of bail has been moved under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to cancel the facility of bail granted by this Court in favour of the accused- respondent. Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the Hon'ble High Court or Court of Sessions may direct that any person, who has been released on bail under this chapter, be arrested and commit him to custody, which clearly denotes that it is not only this Court, but the Sessions Court is also empowered to take action under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. and it would be not of any significance whether the bail order in favour of the accused- respondent has been passed by this Court, as it would always be open for the Trial Court to take coercive action against an accused even if he has been granted bail by this Court and those conditions, under which the concession of bail has been extended to the accused person, are not being adhered or complied by him. It is evident that already non-bailable warrant has been issued by the Trial Court against the accused- respondent, I do not find any substance in the instant bail cancellation application. Thus, the same is dismissed .

However, the Trial Court is directed to take further suitable action for the presence of the accused- respondent before it and issue suitable process which would be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Order Date :- 6.2.2024 Gurpreet Singh

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench