The Court dismissed applications for cancellation of bail against accused persons in a murder case. The Court held that the subsequent proceedings and FIRs cited by the complainant had no nexus with the present incident, and the trial was at a fag end, meaning no cogent grounds for cancellation existed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal 2nd Bail Cancellation Application No. 77/2023
Banwari Lal S/o Bajrang Lal, R/o Kundal, Tehsil And District Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 80/2023
Banwari Lal S/o Bajrang Lal, R/o Kundal, Tehsil And District Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP Mr. Kailash Chand Meena for the complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
02/01/2024
Bench of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. vide order
(2 of 4) [CRLBC-77/2023]
dated 09.08.2019 to Chhote Lal and Mukesh Kumar and vide order dated 26.11.2019 to Bhikhnarayan in respect of FIR No. 33/2016 for offences under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC on grounds that material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution.
[CRLBC-77/2023]
(3 of 4)
“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to
(4 of 4)
[CRLBC-77/2023]
retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.”
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Pcg/2-3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether supervening circumstances exist to warrant cancellation of bail granted in a murder case where the trial is nearing completion and witnesses have been examined?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dolat Ram and others vs. State of HaryanaRelied on¶31
(1995) 1 SCC 349 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Banwari Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Bhikhnarayan
Chhote Lal
Mukesh Kumar
Sudeesh Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
