How to seek bail in false 498A/406 IPC

How to seek bail in false 498A/406 IPC-Get free legal advice for 498A Cases

HOW TO SEEK BAIL IN FALSE 498A/406 IPC

Matrimonial cruelty is the cruelty to which women are subjected to, by her husband and his relatives. Cruelty in matrimonial terms is physical and mental torture caused by the actions of the husband and his relatives towards the wife.

To deal with matrimonial cruelty our constitution makers inserted section 498a in Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty —Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.

For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means :

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Also Read This:- How to seek Bail in False Rape Cases ?

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IPC SECTION 498A ON SOCIETY

The object of our framers of the constitution is to safeguard the women from harassment at their matrimonial home. But some of the women make this law as a tool of extortion or we can say weapon to fulfil their desires and throw out their frustration as revenge by humiliating the husband and his relatives in front of society. Not every cruelty is matrimonial cruelty under 498a until there was a demand for dowry.

What a great irony is that, where our law has found on the principle that says, let a hundred guilty be acquitted, but one innocent should not be convicted, is it really the question of conviction or acquittal?

It’s all about the mental torture from which, one has to suffer due to false allegation put on him with an ulterior motive. As we can conclude this is due to the rigidity of our procedural law.

Nowadays courts also think on this negative step taken by women to trap the innocent people and passed several bail orders keeping in mind various aspects on valid grounds during the trial. The main concern of granting bails is the tenet principle that is, “ei incumbent probation quideficit, non quinegat” which means one is considered innocent unless proven to be guilty.

In recent judgement Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another v. Union of India, Supreme Court modifies the earlier directions issued to prevent misuse of 498a in Rajesh Sharma v. UOI case.  Supreme Court removes welfare committees and safeguarded the husband and his relatives by inserting an anticipatory bail provision in dowry harassment cases.

Grounds considered by Courts while granting Bail in recent judgements

1. NITESH ARORA V. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI, 18 JULY 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

Petitioner had offered to return some of the dowry articles complainants claims to be and in the meantime files an application seeking permission to travel to the USA for an assignment. It is also mentioned that the visa of the petitioner is due to expire soon and its extension should be necessary for completion of assignment assigned to him by the employer, the visa would only be applied once he reached the USA.

2. LALIT SINGH NEGI V. STATE, 17 APRIL 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

Court held that as all the Stridhan had returned no case of custodial interrogation is made out.

3. PARAG BANSAL & ORS. V. STATE, 12 JANUARY 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

It is contended that FIR was lodged after filing an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that all the allegations are false.  The complainant, who is well educated and is practising as an advocate and aware of her rights, has sought to improve upon her story, to falsely implicate the petitioners.

4.  Akshay Kumar V. The State Govt. Of NCT Delhi, 13 November 2017, Delhi High Court

Complainant demanded a sum of money to dissolve the marriage and threatened to harass and humiliate the petitioner and his family, in case they not give her said the amount. Complainant stayed with the petitioner only for two months after marriage. Court contended that there is no need for custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail with some conditions.

5. State V. Harshadrai Jani & Ors., 26 October 2018, Delhi District Court

There was no documentary proof such as MLC of the said allegations by the complainant. The court concluded that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC and section 3 and 7 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt.

HOW TO SEEK BAIL IN FALSE 498A/406 IPC

Matrimonial cruelty is the cruelty to which women are subjected to, by her husband and his relatives. Cruelty in matrimonial terms is physical and mental torture caused by the actions of the husband and his relatives towards the wife.

To deal with matrimonial cruelty our constitution makers inserted section 498a in Indian Penal Code which reads as under:-

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty —Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.

For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means :

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

Also Read This:- How to seek Bail in False Rape Cases ?

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF IPC SECTION 498A ON SOCIETY

The object of our framers of the constitution is to safeguard the women from harassment at their matrimonial home. But some of the women make this law as a tool of extortion or we can say weapon to fulfil their desires and throw out their frustration as revenge by humiliating the husband and his relatives in front of society. Not every cruelty is matrimonial cruelty under 498a until there was a demand for dowry.

What a great irony is that, where our law has found on the principle that says, let a hundred guilty be acquitted, but one innocent should not be convicted, is it really the question of conviction or acquittal?

It’s all about the mental torture from which, one has to suffer due to false allegation put on him with an ulterior motive. As we can conclude this is due to the rigidity of our procedural law.

Nowadays courts also think on this negative step taken by women to trap the innocent people and passed several bail orders keeping in mind various aspects on valid grounds during the trial. The main concern of granting bails is the tenet principle that is, “ei incumbent probation quideficit, non quinegat” which means one is considered innocent unless proven to be guilty.

In recent judgement Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another v. Union of India, Supreme Court modifies the earlier directions issued to prevent misuse of 498a in Rajesh Sharma v. UOI case.  Supreme Court removes welfare committees and safeguarded the husband and his relatives by inserting an anticipatory bail provision in dowry harassment cases.

Grounds considered by Courts while granting Bail in recent judgements

1. NITESH ARORA V. STATE GOVT. OF NCT DELHI, 18 JULY 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

Petitioner had offered to return some of the dowry articles complainants claims to be and in the meantime files an application seeking permission to travel to the USA for an assignment. It is also mentioned that the visa of the petitioner is due to expire soon and its extension should be necessary for completion of assignment assigned to him by the employer, the visa would only be applied once he reached the USA.

2. LALIT SINGH NEGI V. STATE, 17 APRIL 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

Court held that as all the Stridhan had returned no case of custodial interrogation is made out.

3. PARAG BANSAL & ORS. V. STATE, 12 JANUARY 2018, DELHI HIGH COURT

It is contended that FIR was lodged after filing an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that all the allegations are false.  The complainant, who is well educated and is practising as an advocate and aware of her rights, has sought to improve upon her story, to falsely implicate the petitioners.

4.  Akshay Kumar V. The State Govt. Of NCT Delhi, 13 November 2017, Delhi High Court

Complainant demanded a sum of money to dissolve the marriage and threatened to harass and humiliate the petitioner and his family, in case they not give her said the amount. Complainant stayed with the petitioner only for two months after marriage. Court contended that there is no need for custodial interrogation and granted anticipatory bail with some conditions.

5. State V. Harshadrai Jani & Ors., 26 October 2018, Delhi District Court

There was no documentary proof such as MLC of the said allegations by the complainant. The court concluded that prosecution has failed to prove offence U/s 498A/406/420/34 IPC and section 3 and 7 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubt.

How to seek Bail in False Rape Cases?

How to get bail in false rape case-free legal advice

How To Get Bail In False Rape Case?

Rape, one of the most terrifying words which give goosebumps to both men and women. There were many laws for this heinous offence framed by the constitution makers. Some use these laws as a remedy for the mishap that takes place with the innocent but with the instance of time other use these remedies as a weapon of revenge or way to throw their frustration to led down the reputation of others. To safeguard the innocents from the people who use these laws as a weapon to disrepute the one in society there were many Bye-Laws and provisions of Bail and Anticipatory Bail in the Constitution under section 438 and 439 in Criminal Procedure Code.

Rape is defined u/s 375 I.P.C. reads as under:   

Rape: A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions:

  1. Against her will.
  2. Without her consent.
  3. With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt.
  4. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be law­fully married.
  5. With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupe­fying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
  6. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.

(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

Physical relation on the pretext of marriage is not considered as the offence of rape. There are several grounds on which the accused can prove that the physical relation during live-in relationship does not amount to rape but it is the consensual sex. Consensual sex is the physical relation takes place between the couple with the consent of the women.

If once the live-in relationship is established then there are several factors become favorable for the accused. In rape cases there is no limitation of time for lodging F.I.R. supported by various judgements.

Misuse of Rape Laws

Courts noticed that nowadays with genuine cases of rape there are some female who filed false rape cases against an innocent person which led to loss of his reputation in a society and several other unfortunate consequences

There are some reasons which court finds in the cases they dealt with, why women filed false rape cases that is extortion by blackmailing, Pretext of marriage under frustration, revenge to humiliate one’s reputation etc. There are some by-laws and other provisions under the Constitution of India.

In false rape cases, the onus to prove his innocence lies on accused. As section 376 is Non-Bailable Offence, the accused can apply for bail in a Court of session under 438 and 439 Cr.P.C. If bail is rejected by the court than after change in circumstances the accused can apply again or after the filing of the charge sheet.

Recent Judgements of the Hon’ble Courts while granting Bail are as follows:-  

  1. Siddharam Sattlingapp.a Mhetre V. State of Maharashtra; (2011) SCC 694

Supreme Court laid down the following factors and parameters to be taken into consideration while dealing with anticipatory bail.

“112. The following factors and parameters can be taken    into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:

  1. The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before the arrest is made;
  2. The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;

iii. The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice;

  1. The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences.
  2. Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her.
  3. Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.

vii. The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;

viii. While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;

  1. The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant;
  2. Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.
  3. In Akshay Manoj Jaisinghani v. The State of Maharashtra; Bail Application No. 2221/2016 wherein it was observed to the effect :

“ Only because two individuals are sexually involved with each other, it is not compulsory for them to marry. Initially, a boy and a girl genuinely may want to marry and are true to their emotions and establish sexual relationship, however, after some time, they may find that they are not mentally or physically compatible and one decides to withdraw from the relationship. Under such circumstances, nobody can compel these two persons to marry only because they had sexual relationship. It is necessary to have a healthy, objective and legal approach towards these incidents. There may be moral bonding between the two persons when they indulge into sexual activities with the promise to marry and it is also fact that ultimately women only can remain pregnant and therefore, she suffers more than the man. However, in law, this cannot be labeled in any manner as a rape.”

The applicant, in this case, was allowed to be released on bail subject to the conditions imposed.

  1. In Arif Iqbal @ Imran v. State; 2009 SCC Online Del 356. The observations therein are to the effect:

“Without expressing any view on the merits of the case, it is quite apparent from the contents of some of the letters placed by the petitioner on record that the prosecutrix was deeply in love with the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had physical relations with the prosecutrix not at any strange place but at the residence of the prosecutrix itself. In her madness for love with the petitioner, prosecutrix went to the extent of administering intoxicating pills to her family members to induce them to go in fast and deep sleep and during which period the petitioner had sex with the prosecutrix. No doubt the prosecutrix has alleged that she allowed the petitioner to have sex with her because of the false promise of marriage extended by the petitioner but in my view mere false promise of marriage should not have prompted the prosecutrix to establish a physical relationship with the petitioner.”

  1. Shiva Shankar v. State of Karnataka; Crl. Appeal No. 504/2018

Hon’ble Supreme Court contend that where the accused and the prosecutrix had lived together like a married couple, and the sexual intercourse had lasted over a period of time, it was observed to the effect that especially in the face of the complainant’s own allegations of their living together, cannot be termed to be a case of rape.

  1. Bhushan Malik v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi); Bail Application no. 1545/2018; Delhi High Court

The Hon’ble Court observed that there are substantial improvements in version given by the prosecutrix in the supplementary statement given by her over the version given by her in the statement on which the subject FIR has been registered and the statement given before magistrate u/s 64 Cr.P.C. as also her version recorded in the MLC of the sexual Violence.

The Hon’ble Court held that where the medical examination was refused by the prosecutrix therein and the applicants were held entitled to be released on anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C.

  1. Harish Kumar v. State 2010 (4) JCC 2371

The Hon’ble Court contends that a promise to marry which is later denied does not amount to offence of rape and it is a breach of promise and the complainant should seek a civil remedy.

Why Anticipatory Bail is Important? How To Apply For Anticipatory Bail?

Why Anticipatory Bail is important?

The necessity to grant Anticipatory Bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false case for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purpose by getting them detained in jail for some days to get their work done indirectly.

In recent times since the rise of property prices and many civil case coming up by the plaintiff to seek their rights and if the opposite party feels that the plaintiff has good case to win, the opposite party plans and in fact start to file the false and frivolous criminal cases against the plaintiff to put a pressure and this is where the anticipatory bail becomes a much needed thing (i have been dealing with some cases personally wherein the opposite parties by making the false and forged documents are filing the false criminal cases and trying to harass the plaintiff either to withdraw the present case or settle on their terms)

but indeed the legislature in its wisdom have felt the atmosphere going around as many a cases were coming before the courts with the same pattern therefore the present provision of anticipatory bail is brought in the cr.p.c which was not there originally.

Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while in bail, there seems no justification to require him first to submit to the custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail.

Anticipatory bail means grant of bail to a free person in anticipation of his possible arrest for some offence and in the absence of any order of arrest against him. Grant of bail presupposes that the person is in custody of police or court, and if not in custody, is required to surrender to such custody. Hon’ble supreme court in catena of cases has laid down the following guidelines / propositions regarding anticipatory bail:-

  1. The distinction between an ordinary bail and anticipatory bail is that the former being after the arrest means release from custody of police, the latter being in anticipation of arrest is effective at the very moment of arrest.

  2. The high court and the sessions court have been given wide powers- discretionary- left free in the use of their judicial discretion to grant bail on the facts and circumstances of each case.

  3. The court must apply its own mind and decide the question without leaving it to be decided by the magistrate under section 437 and when occasion arises.Not blanket order

  4. The applicant must show by disclosing specific facts and events that he has reasons to believe, the existence of which is sine qua non of the exercise of power by the court and non vague apprehension that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence so that court may take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective and not a blanket order.

    Read Also : How to seek bail in false 498A/406 IPC

  5. Though the power conferred under section 438 of the code can be described as of an extraordinary character, but this does not justify the conclusion that the power must be exercised in exceptional circumstances only because it is of an extraordinary character. Nonetheless, the discretion under the section has to be exercised with due care and circumspection depending on circumstances justifying its exercise.

  6. The filing of the fir is not a condition precedent to the exercise of power under section 438. The imminence of a likely arrest founded on a reasonable belief can be shown to exist even if an fir is not yet filed.

  7. An anticipatory bail can be granted even after an fir is filed so long as the applicant has not been arrested.

  8. An interim bail order can be passed under section 438 of the code of the code without notice to the public prosecutor but notice should be issued to the public prosecutor or to the government advocate forthwith and the question of bail should be re-examined in the light of respective contentions of the parties. The ad-interim order too must conform to the requirements of the section and suitable conditions should be imposed on the applicant even at that stage.

  9. Both the high court as well as the session’s court have the competence and jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application. It is for the applicant or the petitioner to choose either of these; onkar nath agrawal v.state, 1976 cr lj 1142.

  10. Two basic principles to be kept in mind while considering the question of grant of anticipatory bail are:That there should be no likelihood of the accused absconding :The length of his residence in community.his employment, status, history and financial condition.his family ties and relationships.his reputation, character and monetary condition.his prior criminal record including any record of prior release on re-cognizance or on bail.the identity of the responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability the nature of the offence charge, and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these facts are relevant to the risk of non-appearance;Any other factor indicating the ties of the accused to the community or bearing the risk of willful failure to appear there should be no likelihood of the accused misusing his liberty.

  11. Some illustrative case laws are: kusum rani bansal v. State of punjab, 1978 cur lj (cr) 235 (236) (p&h); the investigation was on and over eight months had passed but nothing incriminating had been discovered. The conditional pre-arrest bail to the petitioners was granted. The condition was that they will/would be available for investigation as and when required.

  12. Chand mohd v. State, cr lr 507 (508) (raj). It was observed that it would not be unreasonable to enlarge the accused on bail where it appeared that the condition of the injured had been improved and injuries caused by a sharp object was not sufficient to cause death.

  13. Dilbag singh deleka v. State, 1997 cur lj 237 (247), it has been held that vague allegations in the fir and the same remained unsubstantiated up to the date of hearing of the petition, is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail.

  14. K.s.mathur v. State of rajasthan, 1981 cr cas 281 the main consideration where anticipatory bail should not be refused are: the nature of the accusation and the evidence besides the status of the accused.

    Since the grounds above mentioned are not exhaustive, merely illustrative and every bail application has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

GET FREE LEGAL ADVICE!

Kapil Chandna

 851A,Patiala House Court , Near Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110001, India

+91 9899011450+91 9911218741

Advocate.kapilc@gmail.com

How to get bail in Section 420 IPC ?

How to Get Bail in 420_Free Legal Advisor

How to get bail in Section 420 IPC

Section 420 in the Indian Penal Code deals with Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.

  • 420:Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.: Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable fine

 Essential elements of Section 420

(i) Cheating;
(ii) Dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or   destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security and
(iii) Mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement.

Making of a false representation is one of the essential ingredients to institute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. In order to bring a case for the offence of cheating, it is not merely satisfactory to prove that a false representation had been made, but it is further necessary to prove that the representation was false to the knowledge of the accused and was made in order to deceive the complainant.

  • Cheating

      The term “cheating” has been defined under Section 415 of the Indian Penal Code. The element of cheating must be present in every offence under Section 420 of I.P.C.

Section 415 of IPC states that Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

For example – There are two persons A and Z. A exhibits the false sample of an article to Z and intentionally make Z believes that the article corresponds with the sample. A here induces Z to buy and pay for the false sample of article. A cheats Z.

  • Acting dishonestly

Section 24 defines that what is “acting dishonestly”. When the doing of any act or not doing of any act causes wrongful gain of property to one person or a wrongful loss of property to a person, the said act is done dishonestly.

  • Mens rea

Mens rea is a legal phrase which used to define the mental state of a person while committing a crime and that should be intentional. It can refer to a general intent to break the law or a specific prearranged plan to commit a particular offense. A criminal prosecutor must show beyond any reasonable doubt to convict an accused person that the suspect actively and knowingly contributed in a crime that affected another person or their property.

  • How Cheating is to be proved

You have to prove that there was an intention to cheat at the time of making the misrepresentation; and this fact is to be proved on the basis of all the subsequent conduct as acts and omissions of the accused. Therefore, all the acts and omissions of the accused must be clearly and legibly set out right from the date of making of false representation, till the filing of the complaint.

It must be shown that there is a failure of the promise which was made. It must be shown that there was no effort on the part of accused to perform his promise. The test of prudent man must be applied to appreciate the evidence on record.

  • Cognizance of an offence under Section 420

The offence is cognizable and falls under the category of Non Bailable. It is triable by Magistrate of the First Class and therefore FIR or Application u/s 156(3) or Private Complaint u/s 200 may be preferred.

  • Getting a bail under 420 IPC

Vaman Narain Ghiya v. State Of Rajasthan, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, Balance to be maintained between the personal liberty of the accused and the investigational right of the police. –An accused is not detained in custody with the object of punishing him on the assumption of his guilt thus can opt anticipatory bail.3

Offences under section 420 of IPC are non bailable offence, due to which it is possible to apply for anticipatory bail under sec 438 of CrPc.

  In Abdul Fazal Siddiqui vs Fatehchand Hirawat And Another JT 1996 (8), the court held that there was nothing on the record to show that the appellant had any knowledge about the property being an encumbered property or about the appointment of the Joint Receivers by the Calcutta High Court in a suit in respect of that property. There was no evidence to show that the appellant, knowingly made any false representation much less dishonestly or fraudulently. The basic ingredients of the offence of cheating were missing in the case. The evidence on tile record does not connect the appellant with the crime alleged against him at all. A mere representation, which was neither claimed or alleged to be dishonest or fraudulent would not attract the charge of cheating only because the complainant parts with his money on the basis thereof. In the present case the dishonest representation, both orally and in the deed of hypothecation, was made by  proprietor of the Calcutta Case. The conviction and sentence against the appellant as recorded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, under the circumstances was unsustainable ad thus accordingly the appellant was given bail.

           In Sandeep Chaudhary And Anr. vs State And Ors SC stated that in their opinion, the courts below could not have cancelled the bail solely on the ground that the appellant had failed to keep up his promise made to the court. Here we hasten to observe, first of all from the material on record, we do not find that there was any compromise arrived at between the parties at all, hence, question of fulfillling the terms of the compromise cannot be the basis of granting or cancelling a bail. The grant of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code is governed by the provisions of Chapter xxxviii of the Code and the provision therein does ;not contemplate either granting of a bail on the basis of an assurance of a compromise or cancellation of a bail for violation of the terms of such compromise.

What the court has to bear in mind while granting bail is what is provided for in Section 437 of the said Code. In our opinion, having granted the bail under the said provision of law, it is not open to the trial court or the High Court to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds mentioned for cancellation of bail in the said provision of law. Since the petitioners have been granted interim protection, that shall remain operative for a period of two weeks during which period the petitioners shall apply for regular bail before the trial court

          In a recent ruling in the case of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & Anr the Honorable Supreme court held that Case u/s.420 IPC are not barred if prior case u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act is pending!

Also in Kolla Veera Raghav Rao v. Gorantla Venkateswara Rao & Anr SCC 703, It has been held therein that once the conviction under Section 138 of N.I. Act has been recorded, the question of trying a same person under Section 420 IPC or any other provision of IPC or any other statute is not permissible being hit by Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300(1) Cr.P.C.

In Ranubhai Bhikhabhai Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat the High court on the grounds of detention, a reference was made to three criminal cases registered against the petitioner as under as

(i) Gorva Police Station M. Case No.28/97 for offences under Sec.504, 506(2), 120(B), 406, 420, 386, 389, and 114 of IPC – In this case, the petitioner is enlarged on bail and the trial is pending.

(ii) J.P. Road Police Station Case No.139/98 for offences under Sec.342, 406, 420, 504, 323, 506(2) and 114 of IPC – In this case also, the trial is pending and the petitioner is on bail.  , thus for both the cases the petitioner was granted bail.

Get Free Legal Advice

Kapil Chandna

 851A,Patiala House Court , Near Delhi High Court, New Delhi-110001, India

+91 9899011450+91 9911218741

Advocate.kapilc@gmail.com