SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(SC) 786

2001(8) Supreme 604
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P. Mohapatra & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Pritpal Singh -Appellant
versus
State of Bihar & Anr. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3994/2000)
Decided on 27-4-2001

IMPORTANT POINT
Ground for cancellation of bail that accused tenant had failed to vacate the tenancy premises by stipulated date in terms of compromise is wholly untenable and bail could not be cancelled.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 439-Order of Cancellation of bail-Dispute related to eviction of appellant as tenant from premises-Appellant was alleged to have failed to comply with terms of compromise by not vacating premises in question within stipulated time-Ground for cancellation of bail was untenable-Impugned order was liable to be set aside. (Paras 3 & 4)

       

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents despite service of notice.

Leave granted.

2. The accused in the complaint case No. C-373/98 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Daltonganj, Bihar, has filed this petition assailing the order passed by the Patna High Court on 28th September, 2000 in Crl. Misc.No. 3065/2000. In that case the appellant had challenged the order of the Magistrate cancelling the bail granted to him.

3. The dispute raised in the case relates to eviction of the appellant who is the tenant from the premises of which the respondent is the owner. Previously, there was a compromise between the parties in which it was agreed inter alia that the appellant will pay certain amount to the respondent and vacate the premises by the time stipulated. On the allegation that the appellant has failed to comply with the terms of the compromise by not vacating the premises in question within the time stipulated, the petition for cancellation of bail was filed. It is stated by learned counsel for the appellant that neither any averment was made in the petition about mis-use of liberty granted to the appellant nor any difficulty was alleged to have been faced by the prosecution in the case on the ground of the appellant being at large.

4. The Magistrate cancelled the bail granted to the appellant solely on the ground that the terms of the compromise had not been complied with. To say the least, the ground on which the petition for cancellation of bail was made and was granted is wholly untenable. It is our view that the order if allowed to stand will result in abuse of the process of court. The High Court clearly erred in maintaining the order. Therefore, the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail and the order of the High Court confirming the said order are set aside. The bail order is restored. The appeal is allowed.

Appeal allowed.

***************

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top