A single-judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, set aside the Trial Court order wherein it retracted the appellant’s bail mechanically without even going through the reply filed by the appellant carefully.
The Court held that passing the impugned order only because of a breach of a harsh condition is erroneous and unjustifiable.
Brief Facts:
The Prosecution case is that the complainant, Sagar Nagvanshi lodged an FIR alleging that when the complainant along with one Vinod Tigga was going on his bicycle, the present appellant came from behind in a car and blew the horn to give side. Since there were cattle on the road, the complainant could not give side to the appellant’s car, on which, the appellant overtook the complainant’s vehicle and stopped him. Thereafter, the appellant extended a life threat to the complainant and also abused him in filthy language and passed caste-based remarks against him.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by the complainant under Sections 294, 341, 506 of the IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of the S.C./S.T. Act, against the appellant and he was arrested. The Special Judge granted regular bail to the appellant imposing certain conditions upon him. Apart from other conditions, one condition i.e., condition No.5 was imposed on the appellant concerning marking his presence before the concerned Police Station every week on Monday till the filing of the charge sheet, which the appellant violated.
However, on the ground of committing a breach of condition No.5 of the bail order by the appellant, the State moved an application for cancellation of his bail. The appellant filed his reply and other documents before the Special Judge. After hearing the parties on the application above and also considering the reply filed by the appellant, the Court canceled the regular bail granted to him. This appeal has been preferred against this impugned order.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant submitted that he had been falsely roped in the crime in question. He further submitted that the trial Court, without appreciating the said facts and without considering the principles governing cancellation of bail, mechanically, only on account of violation of condition No.5 concerning his regular appearance once a week every Monday before the concerned Police Station. He further submitted that except for the offence under the Atrocities Act, all other offences were bailable. He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349, wherein it was held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the Judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately.
Observations of the Court:
The Court was of the opinion that the concerned Special Court, without going through the reply filed by the appellant carefully, passed the impugned order only on account of a breach of a harsh condition (condition No.5 imposed on the appellant in the bail order), which is erroneous and not justifiable. Further, it mentioned that the bail once granted to an accused can be retracted in grave and exacerbating circumstances but not in a mechanical manner.
Resultantly, the court set aside the impugned order. The bail granted to the appellant vide order passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities Act), Raigarh in Special Criminal Case was restored. Condition No.5 imposed in the bail order was also deleted.
The Decision of the Court:
The bail was restored.
Case Title: Ashutosh Bohidar vs State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari
Case No.: CRA No. 1228 of 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Hari Agarwal
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Avinash K. Mishra
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
