Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad High Court

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         

 

Similar News