MOHAN SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

MOHAN SINGH versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Refusal of bail should not be treated as a punishment before conviction; unless there is allegation of interference with justice or other well-established grounds, bail should not be cancelled.

Parties
Appellant: Mohan Singh; Respondent: Union Territory, Chandigarh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 February 1978
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court's Order Cancelling Bail
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Bail, Prevention of Corruption Act, Powers of High Court Under Section 439(2) Cr PC
Criminal Law Bail Prevention of Corruption Act Powers of High Court Under Section 439(2) Cr PC

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohan Singh

Appellant

Union Territory, Chandigarh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Punjab & Haryana High Court's Order Cancelling Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bail granted by Sessions Court can be cancelled on the ground of simultaneous applications without disclosure
  2. 2 Whether refusal of bail is justified as an indirect punishment before conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of bail should not be treated as a punishment before conviction; unless there is allegation of interference with justice or other well-established grounds, bail should not be cancelled.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • The appellant is allowed to continue on bail until further orders by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction.