This order dismisses a State criminal petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to A2 and A3, holding that bail observations do not affect the framing of charges or trial.
Criminal Petition No.9799 of 2015 dismissed; anticipatory bail to A2 and A3 remains in force.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Criminal Petition No.9799 of 2015
ORDER
The petitioner-State filed this petition seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/A2 and A3 vide order dated 06.04.2015 in Crl.P.No.2620 of 2015.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
3. The grievance of the petitioner-State is that some of the observations made in the order passed by this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners/A2 and A3 would affect further enquiry or trial.
4. This Court is of the view that any observation made while granting bail and passing orders in any miscellaneous applications, certainly, it will not cause any effect while framing of charge or considering for trial of the case. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents/A2 and A3.
5. Hence, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.
RAJA ELANGO, J.
5th October, 2015
sj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the State petition seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail should be allowed due to observations made in the bail order affecting further enquiry or trial.
State
Respondents/A2
Respondents/A3
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
