Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to Rajesh Shrinivas Kuken (Respondent No.1) and Jitendra @ Jitu Rama Chauhan (Respondent No.2) by the Bombay High Court on 14 December 2009. The respondents had been convicted under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for murder and were released on bail pending appeal subject to conditions, including that they report to D.N. Nagar Police Station once a month and not commit any cognizable offence. The State alleged that Respondent No.1 violated the reporting condition and that both respondents committed several offences while on bail. Specifically, Respondent No.1 was involved in crimes under Sections 323, 324, 326, 160, 397 IPC, and the Arms Act, and was arrested multiple times. Respondent No.2 was also arrested for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 160 IPC. The respondents' counsel argued that the application lacked proper authorization and that Respondent No.1 was falsely implicated. However, the court noted that even if the application was not authorized, it could suo motu take cognizance of the breach. The court found that the respondents had clearly violated bail conditions by committing further offences, and thus cancelled their bail. The court directed that the respondents be taken into custody forthwith.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cancellation of Bail - Breach of Bail Conditions - Section 439(2) CrPC - Court can cancel bail if accused violates conditions or commits further offences - The State sought cancellation of bail granted to respondents convicted under Section 302 IPC, alleging that respondent no.1 failed to attend police station as directed and both respondents committed multiple offences while on bail - Held that the breach of conditions and commission of further offences warrant cancellation of bail (Paras 2-4). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Suo Motu Power of Court - Cancellation of Bail - Section 439(2) CrPC - Court can suo motu take cognizance of breach of bail conditions even if application lacks authorization - The court relied on Thomas Fernandes v. State of Goa to hold that it can cancel bail on its own motion when breach is brought to its notice - Held that the court has inherent power to cancel bail for violation of conditions (Para 3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bail granted to the respondents should be cancelled for violation of bail conditions and commission of further offences while on bail.
Final Decision
The court allowed the application and cancelled the bail granted to both respondents. The respondents were directed to be taken into custody forthwith.
Law Points
- Cancellation of bail for breach of conditions
- Court's suo motu power to cancel bail
- Bail conditions include not committing cognizable offences
- Violation of bail conditions leads to cancellation
