- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Madras High Court says Cancellation of Bail shouldn't be Mechanical
Madras High Court says Cancellation of Bail shouldn't be Mechanical The Madras High Court (HC) in the case titled Stella Mary (Petitioner) v. The State & Anr. (Respondent) emphasized that orders concerning bail or cancellation of bail should not be passed mechanically or in a routine manner. The HC comprising of single-judge Justice K. Murali Shankar passed an order wherein it stated...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Madras High Court says Cancellation of Bail shouldn't be Mechanical
The Madras High Court (HC) in the case titled Stella Mary (Petitioner) v. The State & Anr. (Respondent) emphasized that orders concerning bail or cancellation of bail should not be passed mechanically or in a routine manner.
The HC comprising of single-judge Justice K. Murali Shankar passed an order wherein it stated that the concept of bail is a necessary implication flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life and personal liberty). He added that liberty is not an absolute abstract concept and that it must be governed by law.
The Court clarified that "It is settled law that cancellation of bail should not be done in a routine manner and that the bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner."
It observed, "Generally, bail can be cancelled by resorting to in the two situations and the first situation is that granting of bail being perverse, passed without due application of mind or in violation of any substantive or procedural law and in the second category, can be cancelled on the ground of misuse of liberty after the grant of bail or other supervening circumstances."
A criminal revision petition was filed before the HC for challenging the cancellation of bail granted to a woman accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
It was alleged in the petition that the respondent had been given an advance amount of Rs 2,70,000 for the construction of a house, following which the house was not constructed. A complaint was lodged after allegedly coming to know that the respondent had similarly cheated approx. 10 more persons.
The respondent was granted bail by a Magistrate and it was challenged by the petitioner contending that bail had been granted without any condition to deposit the amount involved. The bail was cancelled by the District Judge.
An appeal was filed before the HC and the Court noted that the Apex Court in the case titled Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another has cautioned against bail Courts imposing certain conditions for the deposit of amounts allegedly due from the accused for the grant of bail.
Justice Shankar set aside the order and ruled that "As per the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, no such condition can be imposed. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the impugned order cancelling bail is liable to be set aside and is set aside accordingly."