SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. Ramana, Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Sharad - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1221/2019 (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 2232/2018)
Decided On : 08-08-2019
Bail Application - Procedural Law - The High Court revoked the bail granted to the appellant on the ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application. The Supreme Court held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or law that prohibits the accused from filing a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court after withdrawing the bail application before the High Court. The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the bail granted by the Sessions Court was restored.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court revoked the bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court based on the appellant's previous withdrawal of the bail application before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had passed the impugned order without proper application of its mind and that the order was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the bail granted by the Sessions Court.
Issues: The issue was whether the appellant could file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court after withdrawing the bail application before the High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court held that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure or law that prohibits the accused from filing a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court after withdrawing the bail application before the High Court.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the High Court revoking the bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court was set aside, and the bail granted by the Sessions Court was restored. The appeal was allowed in the stated terms.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - accused, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.1 - State of Maharashtra and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 -complainant.
3. Having carefully scrutinized the material available on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court has passed the impugned order, without application of its mind, by revoking the bail granted to the appellant by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017, on the ground that the application was not maintainable before the Trial Court as the appellant previously approached the High Court for bail and subsequently withdrew the bail application.
4. It may be mentioned in this connection that there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or law laid down by this Court that once an accused has withdrawn his bail application before the High Court, he cannot file a subsequent bail application before the Sessions Court and that his subsequent bail application would lie before the High Court only.
5. Thus, the impugned order of the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside.
6. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court revoking the bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court. Order dated 20.9.2017 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Nagpur in Misc. Criminal Application No. 1847 of 2017 granting bail to the appellant is hereby restored.
7. Needless to state, if the appellant is in jail, he shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
8. The appeal is allowed in the afore-stated terms.
9. Leave granted.
10. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.