Top News Headlines 25th Apr 2022: Bail Granted By Lower Court Can Be Cancelled By Higher Court If Evidence

Bail Granted By Lower Court Can Be Cancelled By Higher Court If Evidence, Societal Impact And Gravity Not Considered: SC

• In Imran vs Mohammad Bhava the Apex Court has held that even though significant scrutiny is required to be done by the higher Court while cancelling bail granted by lower Court, the same can be done if relevant material, gravity of the offence or its societal impact has not been considered by the lower Court.
• This observation was made while the Court was setting aside an order of bail and anticipatory bail granted by the Karnataka HC. 
• The prosecution’s case was that the first accused had an enmity with one Badrul Muneer and he thus hatched a conspiracy with all the other accused to eliminate him. 
• In pursuance of this common objective, they came and attacked three people with a soda bottle and stones, and subsequently murdered Abdul Lathif. The respondents had thus preferred an application requesting for the grant of bail before the Karnataka HC, which was allowed. The same was preferred on the ground of parity since the other accused persons had been released on bail. 
• Thus, the appellant had sought for the cancellation of the bail that had been granted by the HC, alleging that the Court had erred in not considering the gravity of the offence and overlooked the version of the eye-witnesses. It was also submitted that the release of the accused on bail would pose a grave threat to the prosecution witnesses. 
• The appellant relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh and ors (2002) SCC where it was held that the grant of bal, though being a discretionary order, however, calls for the exercise of this discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. An order of bail which is devoid of a cogent reason cannot be sustained. 
• The Apex Court relied upon its decision in the case of Vipan Kumar Dhir vs State of Punjab and anr (2021) SCC wherein it was held that while it is true that certain intervening circumstances which would impede a fair trial must develop after bail has been granted to the accused, for its cancellation by a superior Court, the same may also be cancelled when the Court granting the bail has ignored the relevant materials available on record, the gravity of the offence or its societal impact. 
• The same has also been observed in the case of Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee and anr (2010) SCC. 
• Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion, the bail and the anticipatory bail granted to the accused persons were set aside. 

Accused Can Examine A Complainant And His Witnesses To Disprove The Case Under Section 138 NI Act: Madras HC

• In SMD Mohammad Abdul Khader vs Muniswari the Madras HC, while setting aside the order of the lower Court, has allowed the accused to examine the prosecution witnesses in proceedings under section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 
• The Court observed that the accused has a right to prove that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity. He can do so by producing independent material witnesses and documents. He can also do so by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. 
• In the instant case, the respondent/complainant alleged that the petitioner/accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.8,00,000 and had issued a cheque for the repayment. Upon presentation, the cheque was returned for the reason that the account was closed. After the issuance of the legal notice as is contemplated by section 138 NI Act, the complaint was filed.
• After the evidence of the respondent/complainant, the petitioner/accused had given a statement under section 313 CrPC and stated that he had evidence to prove his innocence. He filed an application for the summoning of a list of witnesses. The same was rejected by the Court. Aggrieved, the petitioner/accused filed a revision petition in the HC.
• The respondent contended that the list of the witnesses called for by the petitioner was not connected with the case in any manner. The Auditor called for was not in any way connected to the income of the accused. Same was the case with the District Collector and the Tahsildar. Thus, the respondent claimed that the said application for summoning the witnesses under section 243 CrPC was filed only for the purposes of dragging the case. 
• The petitioner/accused claimed that he came from an effluent background and that there was no reason for him to borrow any money from the respondent. He also contended that the respondent had no source of money to lend such a huge amount to him. Thus, to rebut his evidence, the petitioner necessarily had to examine the witnesses. 
• The Hon’ble HC relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Das Mahant (2022) in which the Court held that the accused had the right to demonstrate that the complainant did not have the capacity, and to that end he can cross-examine the witnesses and producing material evidence on record. He can achieve the same by pointing to the materials produced by the complainant himself. 
• The Court also observed that ultimately it is the duty of the Courts to consider carefully and examine the totality of the evidence, and then come to a conclusion. 
• Thus, allowing the revision petition of the petitioner/accused, the order of the lower Court was set aside and the petitioner was allowed to call witnesses in support of his case. 

Deviation Sought From Tender Document Not To Be Considered, If Accepted With Bidder's Own Accord: Delhi HC 

• In Veena Garg vs. Delhi Development Authority (2022), Justice Subramonium Prasad ruled that a bidder who has accepted the tender document on his own volition cannot request variation from it while participating in the tender. Furthermore, it was determined by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that accepting such a proposal violates the principles outlined in Article 14 of the Constitution in relation to other bidders since it infringes on contractual obligations.
• In this case, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) announced an e-auction of industrial property, with a deadline of April 21, 2019, for completing the necessary papers and the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD). On April 16, 2019, the Petitioner was notified that her Bid was the highest after bidding and submitting an application for the same and an EMD of 5% of the reserve amount. Following this, the Petitioner filed a letter to the Deputy Director (Industrial), DDA, stating that she had received a notification of her Bid's acceptance on June 7, 2019.
• Furthermore, the Tender Document for E-Auction (2018-19) mandated the Petitioner to pay 20% of the bid premium and the difference of 5% reserve price at the second stage within 7 days after the acceptance of the offer by the relevant authority. However, the Petitioner could not do so due to her illness and hospitalization. She consequently requested a 15-day extension to deposit the outstanding sum, which was later denied by the Deputy Director (Industrial). Following that, the Petitioner asked for a return of the 5% EMD that she had placed, but she received no response. Therefore, a complaint was filed by the aggrieved Petitioner with the HC.
• Article 14 stipulates that all citizens shall be treated equally before the law and that the law will treat everyone in the same way under the same conditions. This article forbids any kind of discrimination.
• Clause 2.4.3 of the tender document indicates that when the bids are approved by the Competent Authority, a communication will be given to the highest bidder, and the second stage EMD (20 percent of the premium provided) must be submitted by online payment within 7 days of the date of the LOI. If the second stage EMD is not submitted within the specified time frame, the first stage EMD (5 percent of the reserve price) offered along with the Bid will be forfeited.
• After hearing both parties, the Hon'ble High Court concluded that, when the facts of the case were compared to Clause 2.4.3 of the tender document, the forfeiture of the EMD bid (5 percent of the reserve price) was justified because the Petitioner had deposited 5% of the reserve price but had failed to deposit the remaining 20%. Furthermore, the HC noted that the Petitioner was requesting a variation from the parameters provided in the tender agreement, which was not a viable option.
• Therefore, the plea was dismissed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.