Ms. X vs State of Karnataka and another. Criminal Petition 4598/2020 decided on 5 November 2020.
Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/348258/1/CRLP4598-20-05-11-2020.pdf
Relevant Paragraphs: 8 &20 The Apex Court also in the similar circumstances in the case of Chandrakeshwar Prasad v. State of Bihar and Anr. in Criminal Appeal No.932/2016 and State of Bihar v. Md. Shahabuddin in Criminal Appeal No.933/2016 decided on 30.09.2016, reported in (2016) 9 SCC 443 held that the suppression of material facts before the Court regarding the several criminal antecedents of the accused while obtaining the order of bail makes the aforesaid order vitiated. No doubt, the State while considering the earlier bail petition did not bring it to the notice of this Court about the pendency of several cases against this petitioner. Merely registering of several cases against respondent No.2 is not a ground to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. While exercising the power under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C., the Court has to look into the material available on record.
23. Merely because the prosecution has failed to bring out the said cases which are pending against him while considering the bail petition, the same cannot be a ground for canceling the same. The Apex Court, in Neeru Yadav’s case taking note of the fact that he was a history-sheeter and involved in murder and dacoity cases, has invoked Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
24. To invoke Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C., there must be material before the Court to show that there is violation of conditions of the bail order granted or the accused is coming in the way of trial. Mere filing of cases is not a ground to come to the conclusion that he is a habitual offender and he has to be tried and found material that he is having criminal antecedents and having considered the nature of cases registered against him and the offences invoked against him, it requires full fledged trial to ascertain the truth. The judgments of Chandrakeshwar Prasad and Shahabuddin cases do not assist the case of the petitioner to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. When no such circumstances have been made out in the case on hand, this Court is not inclined to exercise powers conferred under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
25. In the absence of any cogent material on record, the liberty of any person as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed on the mere ground of number of cases being pending against him. It is settled law that Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. has to be invoked in exceptional cases when it causes miscarriage of justice, if it is not invoked and the same has to be exercised sparingly and not mere asking of the cancellation of bail.
Petition dismissed.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal
Daksha Legal 