Case Note & Summary
The applicant, Balkrishna Mahadev Lad, was the original accused in Sessions Case No.276 of 2010 arising from C.R.No.26 of 2010 registered at Gamdevi Police Station, Mumbai. He was acquitted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 364, 376(2)(f) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Maharashtra preferred an appeal against the acquittal, being Criminal Appeal No.812 of 2011. On 18th July 2011, the appeal was admitted and the court ordered action under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Consequently, the trial court issued a warrant against the applicant, which was executed, and he was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai on 20th January 2012. The learned Judge committed him to custody till 3rd February 2012. The applicant applied for bail, but by order dated 25th January 2012, the application was rejected. The Sessions Judge observed that the applicant was arrested at his native place in Ratnagiri and had not produced any document to show he was a permanent resident of Mumbai, and therefore, if released, he might abscond. The applicant then filed the present bail application before the High Court. The applicant's counsel argued that in view of the direction in State of Maharashtra v. Bapu Pandu Mali, the applicant was entitled to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right. The learned APP opposed the bail, relying on Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan and State of U.P. v. Poosu, submitting that the court has discretion under Section 390 CrPC to commit the accused to prison pending appeal. The High Court, after hearing submissions, held that the applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right in view of the decision in Bapu Pandu Mali. The court granted bail to the applicant on his executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties, subject to conditions including furnishing a detailed address of his residence, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission. The court also directed that if the applicant is found to have given a false address, the bail may be cancelled.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bail Pending Appeal Against Acquittal - Section 390 CrPC - The court has discretion under Section 390 CrPC to either commit the accused to prison or admit him to bail after an appeal against acquittal is admitted - The applicant was acquitted for offences under Sections 364, 376(2)(f) and 302 IPC - The appeal was admitted and a warrant under Section 390 CrPC was issued - The applicant was arrested and produced before the Sessions Judge who rejected bail - The High Court held that the applicant is entitled to bail as a matter of right in view of the direction in State of Maharashtra v. Bapu Pandu Mali, and granted bail subject to conditions (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicant, who was acquitted by the trial court and against whom an appeal against acquittal has been admitted, is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pending disposal of the appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the bail application and directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.25,000 with one or two sureties. Conditions include furnishing a detailed address of residence, not tampering with evidence, and not leaving India without court permission. If the address is found false, bail may be cancelled.
Law Points
- Section 390 CrPC
- bail pending appeal against acquittal
- discretion of court
- right to bail
- State of Maharashtra v. Bapu Pandu Mali
- Amin Khan v. State of Rajasthan
- State of U.P. v. Poosu
