Case Title:
AASIFBHAI HAJIABDUL BHAYA v/s STATE OF GUJARAT
Date of judgement:
10.06.2022
Bench:
JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Parties:
MR AG JOSHI and Mr. DIPAK H SINDHI for the Applicant(s)
MR. CHINTAN DAVE, APP for the Respondent(s)
Subject
The Gujarat High Court has revoked the bail order of an accused individual on the grounds that he "misused the liberty and grossly violated the bail conditions," citing the distinction between the refusal of bail in a non-bailable matter and the cancellation of bail.
Important provisions
Sec 457, 454, 380 and 114 of the IPC.
Overview
- The Applicant (Original Complainant) stated that commodities worth INR 42,35,000 were taken from his home, prompting the filing of a complaint under sections 457, 454, 380, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
- However, it was argued that Respondent No. 2 committed a crime of a similar character while the instant proceedings were pending, and hence bail should not be continued.
- There were also allegations that the Accused person was issued with notice for the current application in 2017 but opted not to cooperate.
- The APP claimed that the Accused had committed a number of similar offences, including while the petition was pending.
Issue raised
Whether rejection of bail at the initial state and cancellation of bail in non- bailable case have to be dealt on different basis?
Arguments advanced by appellant
- Mr.Dipak Sindhi, arguing on behalf of the applicant, has argued that the learned Judge'sorder is not only erroneous, but also goes against the entire purpose of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.
- The learned Sessions Judge has not comprehended or dealt with any material issues governing the award of bail while exercising reasonable discretion.
- The respondent No.2 has committed a very serious crime, and it has been revealed before the Court that muddamal worth Rs.3,72,900/- in jewels and Rs.50,000/- in cash has been recovered from him, indicating that the accused person is specifically involved in the commission of the crime.
- It has also been asserted that the respondent No.2-accused is a history sheeter with multiple offences on his record, to the point where, during the pendency of the current proceedings, respondent No.2 has been involved in almost identical types of offences in multiples of four, and that, given this track record, the discretion that has been exercised deserves to be corrected.
- Arguments advanced by respondent
- In response, the learned APP acting on behalf of the respondent-State has asserted that current respondent No.2 has been charged with a number of offences and has attached a chart detailing the charges that have been made against him.
- By way of a report dated 04.05.2022, it has been brought to the attention of this Court that the respondent no.2 has committed additional crimes in the years 2017, 2018, and 2020, as well as two additional offences in the year 2021, and that by detailing such information, a request is made to cancel the bail by quashing and setting aside the order because liberty has been grossly abused.
- It has been argued that this is a clear case of respondent No.2 abusing his liberty, and that, in light of this, the order in question should be annulled. There has been a major violation of the bail order's requirements, and allowing such people to move freely in society would be detrimental to the public's interest.
- It has been claimed that a significant amount of muddamal has also been recovered from respondent No.2, and that, given respondent No.2's criminal background, the order granting bail deserves to be invalidated.
Judgement analysis
- During the pendency of the instant case, Justice Ashutosh Shastri noted that the Accused person had committed six offences in total, had exploited his liberty, and had breached bail conditions.
- Despite the fact that the Accused person was served notice in the month of 2017, no representation was made on his behalf in light of the Court's notice. "This perspective of the respondent No.2 also cannot be ignored when disposing of this case," Justice Shastri said flatly.
- The High Court also relied on a report from the involved police station regarding the Accused's misconduct, in which the Accused assaulted other accused people as well as a police officer.
- It had been declared, "The Court is confident that respondent No.2 does not deserve to be granted any more liberty."
- The Court held in Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar that bail can be revoked if the accused abuses his liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, interferes with the course of investigation, attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, threatens witnesses or engages in similar activities that would obstruct a smooth investigation, there is a risk of him fleeing to another country. The arguments listed above are only examples and are not exhaustive.
Conclusion
The initial rejection of a bail in a non-bailable case and the subsequent revocation of bail must be considered and dealt with separately. An order directing the revocation of a bail that has already been granted must be based on very compelling and overwhelming evidence.
As a result, the High Court ruled that the Accused Person's liberty could not be extended any further.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
