Latest News
Back
Document:
High Court of Karnataka held that, Mere registration of multiple cases against a person cannot act as a ground for cancellation of bail.
High Court of Karnataka In the case of Ms. X vs. The State of Karnataka held that the mere registration of multiple cases against a person cannot act as a ground for cancellation of bail. This petition was filed under Section 439(2) of CrPC seeking the court to cancel that bail granted to the accused. Respondent 2 was accused of having sexual intercourse with the women on the pretext of marriage. Later it was found that he was already married and have a child from that said marriage. The accused also has 11 cases pending against him and it was contended that he has a modus operandi of deceiving the women victims by indulging in sexual acts by promising marriage and inducing them to deliver money. It was also submitted by the council on behalf of the petitioners that, the accused was earlier granted that bail by many courts and despite being enlarged on bail the accused continued to commit the same offenses. Therefore, in the instant case, it was prayed that the mere number of criminal antecedents should alone be grounds for rejection of bail to the accused.
Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Manikantan vs. The State of Karnataka 2018 SCC Online Kar 1822, wherein it was held that antecedents of the accused play a vital role in granting of bail. In the cases where the accused is found to be a habitual offender, the bail application is liable to be rejected. But the High Court of Karnataka held that Under Section 439(2) of CrPC, there must be material before the court to show that there is a violation of conditions of the bail, mere filing of cases is not a ground to come to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender. The accused has to be tried and substantial material has to be found that he has criminal antecedents against him and he is guilty of them. This requires a full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth. Therefore the court in absence of substantial material on record stated that the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be curtailed on the mere grounds of a number of cases being pending against him.
Document:
