Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
MANOJ SURESH JADHAV & ORS - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 10179 of 2017
Decided on : 07-05-2018
Bail - Re-arrest without Cancelling Bail Order - The court directed the release of the petitioners on bail as per the previous order and allowed the State to apply for cancellation of bail and seek custody of the accused under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted bail for an offence under section 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, another offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was added to the FIR, and the petitioners were re-arrested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-arrest of the petitioners without cancelling the previous bail order was impermissible. The petitioners were directed to be released on bail as per the previous order, and the State was allowed to apply for cancellation of bail and seek custody of the accused.
Issues: Re-arrest without cancelling bail order
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to allow the State to apply for cancellation of bail and seek custody of the accused, while directing the release of the petitioners on bail as per the previous order.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was disposed of with the direction for the release of the petitioners on bail as per the previous order and allowing the State to apply for cancellation of bail and seek custody of the accused.
ORDER :
1. By order dated 02.06.2016, the petitioners were granted bail for offence punishable under section 509 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
2. During the course of investigation, the police added another offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR against the petitioners and re-arrested them. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed. Hence, the special leave petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
4. It is not permissible for the respondent-State to simply re-arrest the petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in force at that time.
5. We direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail on the same condition/s as imposed in the aforesaid order dated 02.06.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune.
6. Having regard to the provision of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent-State is at liberty to apply for cancellation of bail and seek the custody of the petitioners-accused.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition is disposed of.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
