1. Saquib Abdul Hamid Nachan v. The State of Maharashtra

(High Court Of Judicature At Bombay) | 31-07-2014

In the said case, the Bombay High court highlighted that the prohibition in regard to Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which treats a person who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or iImprisonment for 7 years or more, differently from others, and provides that such person shall not be released on bail, is not absolute and observed as follows:-

“23. I have carefully considered this aspect of the matter, and I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard. Indeed, section 437 of the Code treats a person who has been previously convicted of an offence punishable with death, Imprisonment for Life or Imprisonment for 7 years or more, differently from others, and provides that such person shall not be released on bail. However, the prohibition in that regard is not absolute, and the second proviso to subsection (1) of section 437 of the Code retains the power of the Court to direct such a person to be released on bail if it is satisfied that it is just and proper, so to do for any special reason. In my opinion, that there is no prima facie case, would by itself be a special and sufficient reason for releasing an accused who has been previously convicted, on bail. Any other interpretation would mean that a previous convict of a category mentioned in section 437 of the Code can be booked for any and every offence, and would have to remain in custody till the conclusion of the trial irrespective of whether or not, there is substance in the accusation. In the instant case, coupled with the weaknesses on a number of aspects of the prosecution case, as observed in my orders granting bail to the co-accused Shamil Nachan and Akif Nachan, the applicant has managed to bring out further weaknesses in the prosecution case on the basis of the information procured by him under the Right to Information Act. It is not as if for releasing the applicant on bail, a positive finding that he is not guilty of the alleged offences, is required to be reached or recorded. What would be required is satisfaction about existence of reasonable grounds for believing him to be not guilty. The phrase reasonable grounds imports lesser degree of satisfaction than sufficient grounds. It is not that it is only if there would be no case for proceeding against an accused, that he can be released on bail. This has been specifically made clear by their Lordships of the Supreme Court of India of Ranjitsingh Brahmajeetsing Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr (supra).”



(High Court of Delhi) | 27-03-2015

In this case Delhi High court released the petitioner on bail by stating the previous undergone imprisonment was not under any cognizable offence and observed as follows:-

“17. As already stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner Tejinder Pal Kaur is prepared to deposit the alleged embezzlement amount of Rs. 6,48,443/- and even she is agreeable for the attachment of the balance GPF amount of Rs. 12,70,813/- till the final decision of the case. She has already given the undertaking about joining further investigation and shall provide full cooperation in the matter. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the fact that since the co-accused have already got the bail from the trial court in the matter pertaining to the present FIR after having undergone to judicial custody for about 2 months (although the learned APP for the State submits that the co-accused were released after getting the regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.), similar is the case of Sunil Kumar I think that no useful purpose will be served if she is arrested when she is ready to deposit the alleged embezzled amount as well as attachment of her GPF account in which she is having more than Rs. 12 lacs, and she is also ready to join the investigation in future if so required. They do not have any prior antecedents and have not previously undergone in respect of cognizable offences. The possibility of the petitioners to flee from justice is almost not possible in view of the statement made by them that they would appear on each and every date before the trial court.”



0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment