State sought cancellation of bail granted by Sessions Court. High Court held no grounds existed as no misconduct, new facts, or perversity was established. Application rejected.
Application for cancellation of bail rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
mpt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 183 of 2010
The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant
versus
Dattatraya @ Baba Manohar Mayekar & Anr... Respondents
Mrs.A.A.Mane APP for the applicant State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J.
DATED : 22nd January 2010
P.C.
Supreme Court drew a distinction between rejection of a bail in a non bailable case at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted.
2
In paragraph no.4 of the decision, the Supreme Court observed :
3
The decision of Dolatram’s case was quoted and followed by the Supreme Court in Sudhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 2000 SCC (Crime) 1508. Thereafter, in Puran Vs. Rambilas, 2001 Vol.6 SCC 338, the Supreme Court again reiterated it and stated that concept of setting aside an unjustified illegal or perverse was totally different from the concept of cancelling bail on the ground that accused had misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring cancellation. The position in law is thus settled that a bail which is granted by the Sessions Court can be cancelled on three grounds i) the accused who has been granted bail has misused the bail and misconducted himself, or (ii) because of discovery of new facts requiring cancellation, or (iii) that the order of Sessions Court granting bail is wholly unjustified and illegal or perverse.
4
bail application, the Sessions Judge is not expected to give elaborate reasons as that may prejudice the ultimate trial. Reasons given in brief are sufficient. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has given adequate reasons for granting bail and I do not find any perversity in the view taken by the Sessions Judge. No arguments were advanced that accused has misused the bail and has misconducted after the order of the bail. In the circumstances, none of the grounds for cancellation of the bail exists. Application is accordingly rejected.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the State proved any supervening circumstances, misconduct by the accused, or perversity in the bail order to justify cancellation.
Whether new facts or evidence tampering warrants setting aside the bail granted by the Sessions Court.
Whether the proceedings violate the principles laid down in Dolatram and subsequent Supreme Court judgments.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dolatram Vs. State of HaryanaReferred¶17
Dolatram Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 · Who else cites this
Sudhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar MishraReferred¶20
Sudhendu Mishra Vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 2000 SCC (Crime) 1508 · Who else cites this
Puran Vs. RambilasReferred¶20
Puran Vs. Rambilas, 2001 Vol.6 SCC 338 · Who else cites this
State of Maharashtra
Dattatraya @ Baba Manohar Mayekar & Anr
D.G. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
