Case Note & Summary
The applicant, a minor victim through her natural guardian, filed an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, on 20/03/2015. The bail was granted in connection with Crime No. 17/2015 registered at M.I.D.C. CIDCO police station, Aurangabad, for offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(i), 354(D)(ii), 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(b)(d), 4, 5(H)(I), 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The applicant argued that the bail order was erroneous and that the respondent should be taken into custody. The court heard detailed submissions from both sides but refrained from making observations on the merits of the prosecution case to avoid prejudice. The court noted that for cancellation of bail, it must be shown that the accused has misused the liberty granted or that supervening circumstances have arisen. Since the applicant failed to establish any such grounds, the court dismissed the application, holding that mere disagreement with the bail order is not sufficient for cancellation. The rule was discharged.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cancellation of Bail - Section 439(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Supervening Circumstances - The applicant sought cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 for offences under IPC and POCSO Act. The court held that cancellation of bail requires proof of misuse of liberty or supervening circumstances, not mere disagreement with the bail order. Since no such grounds were made out, the application was dismissed. (Paras 1-5) B) Protection of Children - Sexual Offences - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Bail Cancellation - The respondent was charged with aggravated penetrative sexual assault and other offences. The court declined to cancel bail as there was no material showing that the respondent had misused the bail conditions or that any supervening circumstances had arisen. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bail granted to respondent No. 2 under Section 439 CrPC should be cancelled under Section 439(2) CrPC.
Final Decision
The application for cancellation of bail is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Law Points
- Cancellation of bail requires supervening circumstances or misuse of liberty
- not mere disagreement with the bail order
- Section 439(2) CrPC
- Section 376 IPC
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
- 2012
