Karnataka High Court Case on Bail

7/25/2019 Karnataka High Court Case on Bail

1/13

Karnataka High Court

M. Hanumantha Reddy vs Government Of Mysore on 7 April, !"#

$%uivalent &itations' A(R !") Kant )#, A(R !") Mys )#Author' *alakrishnaiya

*en&h' *alakrishnaiya

OR+$R *alakrishnaiya, .

. -his petition as filed under /e&tion 0!7, Cr. 1. C. and another petition under /e&tion 0!2 asfiled on 0303"# in Court, supported 4y an affidavit and a +o&tor5s &ertifi&ate. *oth these petitions

&ontain a prayer for enlarging the petitioner on 4ail. -he Advo&ate3General stated that there as

no o46e&tion to treat the earlier petition itself as having 4een filed under /e&tion 0!2.

#. or an alleged attempt made on #03)3!"# to &ommit murder 4y strangulation, the petitioneras arrested and a &ase against him as registered under /e&tion )87, (. 1. C. -he appli&ations

for 4ail filed 4y him in the Court of the City Magistrate, *angalore, 4efore hom he as

produ&ed in the &ourse of investigation, have 4een re6e&ted.

). -he offen&e under /e&tion )87, (. 1. C. is a non34aila4le one. -heCriminal 1ro&edure Codeunder /e&tion 0!9provides for granting 4ail in offen&es Other than non34aila4le, and /e&tion

0!7regulates the admission to 4ail in non34aila4le &ases. :hile under /e&tion 0!9a person may

4e released on 4ail invaria4ly on an appli&ation in that 4ehalf, /e&tion 0!7pla&es a limitation onthe poers of a Magistrate in that respe&t. A distin&tion is dran under/e&tion 0!74eteen non3

4aila4le offen&es hi&h are punisha4le ith death or transportation for life and other non3

4aila4le offen&es. A Magistrate is vested ith dis&retion to release any person a&&used of a non34aila4le offen&e on 4ail e;&ept in &ases here there appear reasona4le grounds for 4elieving that

the person is guilty of an offen&e punisha4le ith death or transportation for life. (t is argued for

the prose&ution that the offen&e alleged to have 4een &ommitted 4y the petitioner is of a graveand serious &hara&ter punisha4le ith transportation for life, that in the light of the eviden&e sofar &olle&ted, the Magistrate has &ome to the reasona4le 4elief that su&h an offen&e has 4een

&ommitted and refused to admit the petitioner to 4ail and that in su&h &ir&umstan&es the High

Court ought not to interfere ith the dis&retion e;er&ised 4y the Magistrate unless the orderre6e&ting the 4ail is perverse or manifestly rong. On the other hand, it is &ontended on 4ehalf of

the petitioner that no offen&e punisha4le ith transportation for life has 4een &ommitted and

even so, the High Court has unfettered dis&retion under/e&tion 0!2, Cr. 1. C. to grant 4ail if the&ir&umstan&es of the &ase permit, irrespe&tive of the limitations imposed 4y /e&tion 0!7on the

trial Magistrate.

0. -he most important point for &onsideration is hether the High Court has e;tended poersunder /e&tion 0!2, Cr. 1. C. -he latter part of /e&tion 0!)runs thus'


2/13

-he poers of the High Court and the &ourt of /ession under /e&tion 0!2are of a &on&urrent

6urisdi&tion ith that of a Magistrate. (t is seen on a &omparison of/e&tions 0!7and0!2that the

High Court is invested ith poer under /e&tion 0!2, Cr. 1. C. as a Court of superior, appellateor revisional 6urisdi&tion and has vast poers to dire&t that any person 4e admitted to 4ail in any

&ase. rom the ording of /e&tion 0!2,Cr. 1. C.'

. Hut&hinson5, A(R !) All. )"9 at p.)98 =A??.

". (t has 4een strenuously argued that the dire&tion given 4y /e&tion 0!2is limited 4y or in

pra&ti&e limited 4y, the &onditions found in /e&tion 0!7and there is some support for the

proposition in reported de&isions 4ut the preponderan&e of authority appears to 4e in favour of

the vie that under /e&tion 0!2the High Court has unrestri&ted poers for dire&ting 4ail in any&ase to any person. -he dis&retion of the High Court is not limited to the &onsideration set out 4y

/e&tion 0!74ut that &onsideration is to 4e &onsidered along ith all the &ir&umstan&es of the&ase. ( am therefore of opinion that /e&tion 0!2is not &ontrolled 4y /e&tion 0!7so as to pre&lude

the &onsideration 4y the High Court of the other &ir&umstan&es in order to entitle any person to

4ail. @o reported de&ision of this Court, dire&tly 4earing on this point, as 4rought to my noti&e4ut to unreported de&isions ere &ited 4y the learned Advo&ate3General as supporting the

proposition that /e&tion 0!2is &ontrolled 4y /e&tion 0!7.( am in&lined to think that those &ases

do not support that vie. (n 33 5Cr. 1etns. @os. 7 and ) of !"3"# =*?5, the learned udge

o4served that


3/13

egislature has given the High Court and the Court of /ession dis&retion =to a&t under

/e&tion 0!7? unfettered 4y any limitation other than that hi&h &ontrols all dis&retionary poers

vested in a udge vi., that the dis&retion must 4e e;er&ised 6udi&ially.. 09#?.=/ha44ar Raa Rivi ?.

14. 200! #L$ 1852 %*&

/e&tion 02!3 ould only 4e relevant here in respe&t of a


11/13

loan or non3fulfillment of an o4ligation. -he &he%ue as

issued and got dishonored the ay mentioned under said

se&tion.

15. 200! P.Cr.L.J. 187%a&

Fuashing of .(.R.

-he &he%ue as issued 4efore the se&tion 02!3 on the

statute 4ook. /o no retrospe&tive operation. .(.R. Fuashed.

17.PL' 2005 La( !07 %*&

Rational 4ehind the ena&tment of /e&.02!3 11C. +oes not

&all for a me&hani&al a&tion immediately hen a &he%ue is

returned 4y a 4anker, 4ut it used only in the matter of

payment of loan, 4usiness transa&tions, genuine disputes

and &ontra&tual o4ligations may not &onstitute for the

offen&e.

18.2005 SC)$ "0!

Fuashing of .(.R.

Che%ue as dishonored and &omplainant laughed an .(.R.

against the a&&used. A&&used raised plea that the disputed

entire amount as paid 4ut from different a&&ount. .(.R.

as %uashed.

19. 2005 P.Cr.L.J 144 Fuashing of .(.R.

Che%ue as dishonored and &omplainant laughed an .(.R

against the a&&used 4ut during investigation he had 4een

found prima3fa&ie inno&ent and .(.R as %uashed.

20.200! P.Cr.L.J 522%a&

/e& 0!7=#?

/e& 02!3. *ail Grant Of

Civil &ourt as to determine as to hether the agreement in

%uestion as enfor&ea4le under the la or notChe%uehi&h as dishonored 4y the *ank on presentation had

4een issued 4y the first party as guarantee in favour of the

se&ond party333/e&ond party as to re&over the amount

through the Court of la at the risk and &ost of the first

party333Case against a&&used, therefore, to all intents and

purposes as of further in%uiry ithin the meaning of


12/13

/.0!7=#?, Cr.1.C.Offen&e under se&tion 02!3 1.1.C. did

not fall ithin the prohi4itory &lause of /.0!7=?,Cr.1.C.

and 4ail in su&h &ases as a rule and refusal an e;&eption

A&&used 4eing a lady as also entitled to grant of 4ail

under first proviso to /.0!7,Cr.1.C,33Consideration for

grant of 4ail 4efore arrest and for grant of after arrest 4eing

altogether different, dismissal of the appli&ation of the

a&&used for pre3arrest 4ail 4y the High Court earlier had no

hearing on the merits of the present appli&ation for post3

arrest 4ail333A&&used as in 6ail for the last a4out to

months333 *ail as alloed to a&&used in &ir&umstan&es.

2007 P.Cr.L.J 100

/.02!33*ail. Grant of333

A&&used issued a &he%ue as earnest money to &omplainant,hi&h prima fa&ie as not an o4ligationReal intention of

the parties ith regard to the agreement ould 4e

determined 4y the -rial Court after re&ording eviden&e

Offen&e for hi&h a&&used as &harged ,did not fall under

prohi4ited &lause of /e&.0!7,Cr.1.C.A&&used as 4ehind

the 4ars and no more re%uired for further investigation-o

keep a&&used 4ehind the 4ars for an indefinite period ould

not serve any use full purpose333 A&&used as admitted to

4ail, in &ir&umstan&es.

4&. 2004 #L$ 2!75

Sec.489-F P.P.C.

*ail Grant of.

*oth a&&used and &omplainant ere doing 4usiness ith

ea&h other and issuan&e of some &he%ues &ould 4e in &ourse

of su&h 4usinesseven otherise a&&used as not

involved in a &ase falling ithin prohi4itory &lause of

/e&.0!7. Cr.1.C. and grant of 4ail in su&h like &ases as a

rule and refusal as an e;&eption and no e;&eptional

&ir&umstan&es e;isted in &ase for refusal of 4ail to him333

@othing as to 4e re&overed from a&&used and he &ould

not 4e kept in 6ail for indefinite period333A&&used as

admitted to 4ail, in &ir&umstan&es.


13/13

Documents

Karnataka High Court Case on Bail