Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. Surender, J.
Mathangi Mphan - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No. 881 of 2018
Decided On : 14-06-2023
Bail - Criminal Procedure - The court set aside the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner, accused No.10, as the offence alleged was a bailable offence under Sec. 202 of IPC and the order prima facie appeared to be illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, accused No.10, had his bail cancelled by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, based on an application filed by the State under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed a revision against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the offence alleged against the petitioner was a bailable offence under Sec. 202 of IPC and that the order cancelling the bail prima facie appeared to be illegal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was allowed to continue the bail.
Issues: The main issue was the legality of the order cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner, accused No.10, based on an application filed by the State under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the fact that the offence alleged against the petitioner was a bailable offence under Sec. 202 of IPC and that the order cancelling the bail prima facie appeared to be illegal.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, and the impugned order cancelling the bail was set aside.
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Ss. 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.'), to set aside the order dtd. 21/3/2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner - accused No.10 in Crime No.20 of 2018 of Nalgonda II Town Police Station.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. The State - 1st respondent has filed an application under Sec. 439(2) of Cr.P.C. praying to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner - accused No.10 in Crl.M.P.No.119 of 2018 vide Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2018 before the learned Family Court Judge-cum-VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda. After hearing arguments, the learned Sessions Judge has allowed the above application, by cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner - accused No.10 and directed him to surrender before the Court concerned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner - accused No.10 has preferred the present revision.
4. On 3/4/2018, this Court has found favour with the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sec. 202 of IPC is a bailable offence and suspended the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2018 by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. It is not in dispute that the offence alleged against the petitioner is Sec. 202 of IPC which is a bailable offence. Suspension orders were passed way back on 3/4/2018. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner is appearing before the Court and undergoing the process of trial. In the said circumstances, when the offence alleged against the petitioner is a bailable offence and the order cancelling the bail prima facie is illegal, the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2018 cancelling bail granted to the petitioner is liable to be set aside.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dtd. 21/3/2018 passed in Crl.M.P.No.133 of 2018 by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, is hereby set aside. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
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.
The cancellation of bail requires substantial evidence of non-compliance with bail conditions, which was not established in this case.
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.
Subsequent bail cancellation renders prior recall warrant challenge infructuous; remedy is fresh bail application.
The dismissal of a criminal revision petition is appropriate when the sentence has been served and no further issues remain for consideration.
Cancellation of bail should not be done in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive for a fair trial to allow the accused to ....
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
