Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 18: While allowing petition seeking quashing of order of cancellation of bail, Justice Janak Raj Kotwal of High Court observed that the Presiding Officers of the courts at all levels are expected to show more sensitivity in dealing with questions relating to fundamental rights of the citizens like right to liberty.
In this case, even if the Magistrate was satisfied about the reason for which cancellation of bail was sought by the prosecution, cancellation of bail was not the only option to deal with the situation. There is no dearth in the criminal law of the provisions relating to preventive measures. Therefore, while allowing this revision petition, it is made clear that it shall remain open for the law enforcing agencies to take appropriate preventive measure in the matter, if the need still be, the judge observed.
In the petition filed by Kuldeep Raj seeking quashing of order passed by Judicial Magistrate Akhnoor by virtue of which Judicial Magistrate Akhnoor allowed the application filed by prosecution seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
Justice Kotwal while allowing the petition observed that in bailable offences, cancellation of bail is not permissible, given the very nature of the offence. The only power available to the court under Sub Section (2) of Section 496 of the code is to refuse to release the accused, if he has failed to comply with the conditions of bail bond, 'as regards the time and place of attendance' when he appears before the court on a subsequent occasion or is brought in custody. This may be explained like this.
The judge said that if during trial for a bailable offence, accused does not appear before the court on a date of hearing and court issues warrant of arrest for securing his appearance before the court, the court may refuse to release him when he appears or is brought in custody before the court on or before the next date in the case. He observed that Magistrate has, therefore, erred in cancelling the bail. |
