Thursday, 10 May 2018

Whether it is Permissible To Re-Arrest An Accused Who Is In Bail When Police Added A Non-Bailable Offence?

By order dated 02.06.2016, the petitioners were granted bail
for offence punishable under section 509 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
 During the course of investigation, the police added another
offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR
against the petitioners and re-arrested them. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court which was
dismissed. Hence, the special leave petition. 2
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
It is not permissible for the respondent-State to simply
re-arrest the petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in force
at that time.
 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).10179/2017
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-09-2017
in CRLWP No.3582/2017 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At
Bombay)
MANOJ SURESH JADHAV Vs  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 

Date : 07-05-2018.
CORAM :
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO




 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
 O R D E R
By order dated 02.06.2016, the petitioners were granted bail
for offence punishable under section 509 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, the 'IPC') by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
 During the course of investigation, the police added another
offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code in the FIR
against the petitioners and re-arrested them. Being aggrieved, the
petitioners filed writ petition before the High Court which was
dismissed. Hence, the special leave petition. 2
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
It is not permissible for the respondent-State to simply
re-arrest the petitioners by ignoring order dated 02.06.2016 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, which was in force
at that time.
We direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail on
the same condition/s as imposed in the aforesaid order dated
02.06.2016 by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune.
Having regard to the provision of Section 439(2) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, the respondent-State is at liberty to apply
for cancellation of bail and seek the custody of the
petitioners-accused.
With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition is
disposed of.


Print Page

No comments:

Post a comment