What is Bail?
Bail implies an order of release of an individual from jail and frames a vital piece of our criminal justice system which assumes each man innocent until (conclusively) proven guilty. Bail is conceded during the pendency of the trial of an appeal. Before bail is granted to the accused, a surety gives a guarantee to the Court that the accused will appear in the Court as and when required. In addition, a whole of cash is to be deposited to guarantee his appearance under the steady gaze of the Court, which generally stands relinquish.
What does section- 420 say?
According to section- 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 it says about cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property,
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
What is Bailable/ Non- Bailable offence?
Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines bailable and non bailable offences. Bailable offence is an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule and it is right of the accused to be released on bail on giving required security.
An offence which is not a bailable offence is a non-bailable offence. In a non- bailable offence, the accused does not have a right to be released on bail. In these offences, the discretion is with the Court. The Court may release the person and may impose conditions on him.
Vinod Tiwari And Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh And Anr, 13th October, 1995
This application under Section-439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') for cancellation of blanket order of bail passed under Secton-438 of the Code by Shri Rampal Singh, J. (since retired) as the non-applicant No. 2 apprehended his arrest for several accusations under Section-419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The application for cancellation of blanket order of bail was heard by Mr. Justice G. C. Gupta (as he then was), who vide order dated 11-1-1991 cancelled the blanket order of bail. Non-applicant No. 2 approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the Criminal Appeal No. 698 of 1991 arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 706/91, vide order dated 12th November, 1991 setting aside order of cancellation of bail and remitted the case for reconsideration by this Court with a direction that the application for cancellation of bail be assigned by learned Chief Justice to Senior most Judge available in the High Court (Mr. Justice Rampal Singh, since retired) for disposing of the application expeditiously. For one reason or the other, the matter could not be heard. Lastly Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice vide order dated 17-7-1995 assigned the case to this Court for hearing and that is how the matter has come before this Court for hearing.
The applicant is directed to surrender himself before Police Station Civil Lines, Jabalpur on or before 30-9-1988 and in the event of his arrest, if he offers a personal bond of Rs. 100/-, then he may be released on bail. The applicant also apprehends that he may be arrested in 616 cases which may have been registered against him by the police. If so, then I think it proper to pass a blanket order. If the applicant is arrested by the police for other offences also and he files a personal bond of Rs. 100/- for each case, then he may be released on bail for those offences under Section-419 and 420, Indian Penal Code. But, he is directed to cooperate - with the Police for the purpose of interrogation and investigation.
"C. C. be supplied on payment of necessary charges." Misc. Cr. Case No. 2796/88 24-9-1988
For the reasons stated in the order passed today by me in Misc. Cr. Case No. 2827/88, this application is allowed.
The applicant is directed to surrender himself before Police Station Civil Lines, Jabalpur on or before 30-9-1988 and in the event of his arrest, if he offers a personal bond of Rs. 100/- then he may be released on bail. The applicant also apprehends that he may be arrested in 616 cases which may have been registered against him by the Police. If so, then I think it proper to pass a blanket order. If the applicant is arrested by the police for other offences also and he files a personal bond of Rs. 100/- for each case, then he may be released on bail for those offences under Section-419 and 420, Indian Penal Code. But, he is directed to cooperate with the police for the purpose of interrogation and investigation.
Considering the above well established principles relating to the cancellation of bail, so far as the bail granted to the non-applicant No. 2 after hearing on merits by the Sessions Judge, the petitioners or the Additional Advocate General have not produced any material before this Court to demonstrate that the accused is interfering with due course of administration of justice, evading or attempting to evade the due course of justice or abusing the concession granted to him, except that the accused is granted exemption from personal appearance during trial, hence the bail so granted cannot be cancelled. However, the bail granted under Section-438(1) of the Code by a blanket order, was contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Gurubaksha Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab (supra), hence it is liable to be cancelled. Accordingly the bail granted for the offences under Section-419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Crime Nos. 201/88, 539/89 and 17/91 by Police Station Civil Lines, Jabalpur are cancelled.
Anilbhai vs. State, 11th February, 2010
It is the case of the petitioner that the regular bail request of the petitioner is not maintainable. The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail only for offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The anticipatory bail therefore cannot cover the subsequent additional section- 409 of the Indian Penal Code which is a much graver offence. The accused therefore cannot be stated to have been in custody so as to enable him to file regular bail application for offence under section-409 also.
In the present case, it is true that when respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court, provisions of section 406 and 420 alone were mentioned in the complaint against him. His arrest and subsequent release by the police pursuant to the anticipatory bail order of the High Court, therefore, would cover only the situation prevailing at the time of passing of such an order. It is also true that shortly thereafter section 409 of the Indian Penal Code was added against respondent No.2 with the permission of the Court.