Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal filed by BJP leader Girraj Singh Malinga against cancellation of his bail granted for offences punishable under provisions of the and the ; the Division Bench of M.M. Sundresh and Aravind Kumar, JJ., restored the earlier bail order granted by Rajasthan High Court, taking into note that the appellant has already surrendered. The Court directed the appellant’s release on the very same terms and conditions based on which he was granted bail.
The appellant was charged for the major offences punishable under Section , amongst others, read with Sections of the . He was duly arrested, and bail was granted by the order dated 17-05-2022. Thereafter, an application was filed by the defacto complainant seeking to cancel the bail on the premise that the appellant had violated the conditions imposed and conducting a public procession glorifying the alleged occurrence. This application was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 05-07-2024. The appellant had surrendered.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is a distinction between a challenge to the grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation. In the former, the grounds based on which the bail was granted can be questioned, in the latter, it is the jurisdiction of the Court which is restricted inclusive of bringing to the notice Court certain facts, which were not available initially and the subsequent developments which took place. It was submitted that the respondent did not challenge the grant of bail, and the appellant did comply with the order of the Court.
Per-contra, counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant was involved in subsequent cases of land grabbing, apart from threatening the witnesses.
Counsel for the appellant by way of reply, submitted that the case registered against the appellant for threatening the victim has been closed.
Perusing the contentions, the Court pointed out that that an order challenging the bail granted is different from one seeking to cancel the same. The Court further noted that the bail order was granted on 17-5-2022 and the impugned judgment cancelling the bail, was passed after 2 years. Therefore, the Court deemed it fit to set aside the impugned order of cancellation, clarifying that the instant order will not stand in the way of either the prosecution or the defacto complainant filing an appropriate application for cancellation at a later stage.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.5302 OF 2024 Appellants : Girraj Singh Malinga Respondents : State of Rajasthan | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Sharma, AOR Mr. Aditya Vikram Singh, Adv. Mr. Sameer Rohtagi, Adv. Mr. Kanchan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshat Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amrit Pradhan, Adv. Mr. Yuvarajsing Solnki, Adv. Mr. Aditya Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ravi Pachori, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Singh, Adv. Mr. Mishra Aditya, Adv. Mr. Priyansh Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma, A.A.G. Mr. Amogh Bansal, Adv. Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR Mr. Mehmood Pracha, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Ms. Malti, Adv. Ms. Amanat Kaur Chahal, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv. Mr. Desam Sudhakara Reddy, Adv. For M/S MPS Legal, AOR |
CORAM :
M.M. Sundresh, J.
Aravind Kumar, J.
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .