Back
SUBHENDU SAMANTA
In The Matter of Sk. Farid @ Fariduddin – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the case and bail application (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments against and for the bail cancellation (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's analysis on bail application disclosures (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. decision rejecting the revision application (Para 13) |
| 5. final judgment and order disposition (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
(Subhendu Samanta, J.)
CRAN 1 of 2022 and CRAN 2 of 2022 is disposed of with a direction that the delay in preferring the application for restoration is condoned. The application for restoration is allowed. CRR is hereby restored to its original file and number.
2. The instant criminal revision is preferred against order dated 8th May 2018 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur, in connection with Criminal Misc case No.4039 of 2017 in connection with GR No.388 of 2017 arising out of Ghatal Police Station case No.118 of 2017 dated 16.06.2017 u/s 458/436/302/120B/506 of IPC.
3. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioner was arrayed as an accused along with others in connection with the above mentioned P.S. case. During the course of investigation the accused was arrested and taken into custody
The Court clarified that while a bail order is interlocutory and not subject to revision, the Sessions Judge retains the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.
The legality of the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner, accused No.10, was determined based on the nature of the alleged offence as a bailable offence under Sec. 202 of IPC.
Judicial discretion in bail matters must be exercised judiciously, requiring changed circumstances for successive applications.
The court ruled that a revision against an interlocutory bail order is not maintainable under S.397(2) CrPC, highlighting the procedural significance of such orders.
A bail cancellation application cannot be pursued in the High Court after the Sessions Court has rejected it; such challenges must follow appropriate procedural avenues and respect distinctions in la....
Judicial discretion in granting bail must be exercised judiciously, with specific reasons provided, especially when prior applications have been denied.
Bail cancellation requires cogent reasons; mere involvement in a subsequent crime does not justify cancellation without evidence of interference with justice.
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
