Bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled only on the ground that several cases are registered against him, says Karnataka High Court

New Delhi (ILNS): The Karnataka High Court while dealing with a petition seeking cancellation of bail granted to a man by the high court, observed that bail granted to an accused cannot be cancelled only on the ground that several cases are registered against him.

The observation was made by Justice HP Sandesh, where an FIR had been registered against the accused under Sections 376, 420 and 506 of I.P.C on the allegation that the accused came in contact with the complainant through the dating site ‘Tinder’. The accused lured and trapped the complainant into a romantic relationship, promising marriage on the pretext that he was an extremely successful businessman with multiple business establishments in India and abroad.

The accused had taken the complainant into confidence by portraying himself to be a genuine person and tendering false assurances. He then started demanding money from her and she gave him a total of Rs 31,88,500. Subsequently, the complainant came to know that the accused was already married for almost ten years and has a child from the said marriage. Since he cheated the complainant by promising that he would marry her, the complaint was lodged.

The main grounds, urged by the complainant in the petition for cancellation of bail was that the accused is a habitual offender and is employed in criminal, civil and money recovery proceedings and there are 11 cases pending against hm.

The bench however observed: “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. On perusal of the material placed before the court, except listing out the cases registered against the accused, no other material is placed before the Court to show that he has been convicted for the commission of any offences in any other cases and in order to substantiate that he is a habitual offender, no material is placed before the Court.”

While dismissing the criminal petition, the bench further observed: “No doubt, though 10 cases are listed out, out of which 3 cases are registered for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 420, 417 and 506 of I.P.C., it is important to note that in all the cases he has been enlarged on bail invoking Sections 438 and 439 of Cr.P.C. and not convicted. 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.”

Read the order here;