Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

High Court Rules Magistrate's Jurisdiction Limited to Cancel Bail Under Specific Sections

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on July 20, 2023, the High Court of Orissa held that magistrates do not have the jurisdiction to cancel bail granted under Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The decision came in the case of Chinmaya Sahu v. State of Orissa (CRLMC No. 2452 of 2023) where the petitioner sought to challenge the order cancelling his bail bond.

Justice Sashikanta Mishra, presiding over the bench, delivered the judgment and emphasized the need to follow principles of natural justice. The court held that the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before their bail is cancelled. The maxim "audi alteram partem" was invoked to underscore this point.

In the present case, the petitioner was granted bail earlier under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. as the alleged offense was bailable. Subsequently, the investigating officer added higher offenses under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471, 409, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) during the course of the investigation. Following this, the IO sought the cancellation of the bail, which led to the impugned order.

However, the court observed that the power to cancel bail granted under Section 436 of Cr.P.C. does not lie with the magistrate. The relevant power is vested with the High Court or the Court of Session under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. The impugned order was, therefore, found to be without jurisdiction and was quashed.

Mr. B.P. Pradhan, the advocate representing the petitioner, argued that the magistrate lacked the authority to cancel bail granted under Section 436. He cited relevant precedents, including P.K. Shaji @ Thammanam Shaji v. State of Kerala (2005) 13 SCC 283 and Gurdev Singh and another v. State of Bihar and another (2005) 13 SCC 286, to support his contention.

The court referred to the earlier cases of Madhab Chandra Jena and another v. State of Orissa (63 (1987) C.L.T. 226) and Kalia v. State of Orissa ((1999) 17 OCR 398) where a similar view was taken, confirming that the magistrate's jurisdiction to cancel bail granted under Section 436 lies with the higher courts.

This judgment serves as an important precedent clarifying the scope of the magistrate's authority in matters of bail cancellation and reaffirms the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in criminal proceedings.

 

Date of Decision: 20th July 2023

 Chinmaya Sahu  vs    State of Orissa         

 

Latest Legal News