Bail Cannot Be Cancelled When Accused Wasn't Conditioned To Not Get Involved In Any Other Criminal Case: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently rejected an application for cancellation of bail of a person on the ground that his bail order had not conditioned him to not get involved in any other criminal case. The Applicant had alleged that the accused person, who was enlarged on bail by the Court, was regularly indulging in criminal activities and that he was also...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, recently rejected an application for cancellation of bail of a person on the ground that his bail order had not conditioned him to not get involved in any other criminal case.
The Applicant had alleged that the accused person, who was enlarged on bail by the Court, was regularly indulging in criminal activities and that he was also influencing the investigation against him.
Rejecting the contentions of the Applicant, Justice Anil Verma observed-
From the perusal of the order dated 22.2.2021 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4337/2021, I find that this Court had not imposed any condition while allowing the bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. that in future the respondent/accused will not involve in any other criminal case. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent/accused has violated any condition imposed by this Court.
The facts of the case were that the Respondent was accused for offences punishable U/S 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of IPC. He was earlier granted bail by the Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 on furnishing a bail bond of Rs.35,000/- with one surety of the like amount.
The Applicant moved the application for cancellation of bail granted to the Respondent/accused. He submitted before the Court that the Respondent/accused had misdirected the Court earlier in order to get relief in the form of grant of bail. He asserted that the Respondent was practicing various kinds of criminal activities regularly and that he had also influenced the investigation. It was thus prayed that since the Respondent/accused had violated the terms and conditions of his bail, the same be cancelled by the Court.
Per contra, the Respondent/accused maintained that he had not misused the liberty granted to him by the Court.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court observed that nothing was brought on record to show that the Respondent/accused had violated any conditions under which the benefit of bail was granted to him. Therefore, the Court refused to cancel the bail of the Respondent/accused and accordingly, the application was rejected.
Case Title : VAISHALI VARSHIKAR v VIJAY MOURYA and anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 177