Skip to content


Mohan Singh, Advocate Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 118 of 1978
Judge
Reported inAIR1978SC1095; 1978CriLJ844; (1978)2SCC366; [1978]3SCR127; 1978(10)LC606(SC)
ActsPrevention of Corruption Act - Sections 5(2)
AppellantMohan Singh, Advocate
RespondentUnion Territory, Chandigarh
Appellant Advocate S.K. Mehta, Adv
Respondent Advocate M.M. Punchhi and ; P.C. Bhartari, Advs.
Prior historyAppeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order Dated January 11, 1978 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Misc. 129-M of 1978--
Excerpt:
.....which was cancelled by high court - appeal before supreme court for grant of bail - no ground for refusal of bail found - bail granted accordingly. - [b.p. sinha, c.j.,; k. subba rao,; n.rajagopala ayyangar,; raghuvar dayal, jj.] where an application is made under s. 10(1)(a) of the hindu marriage act, 1955, for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion, the legal burden is upon the petitioning spouse to establish by convincing evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the respondent intentionally forsook and abandoned him or her without reasonable cause. the petitioner must also prove that there was desertion throughout the statutory period and there was no bona fide attempt on the respondent's part to return to the matrimonial home and that the petitioner did not..........court without disclosing to the sessions court that he had moved for bail in the high court. this naturally made the high court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings with the court the consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.2. counsel for the state pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to) the results of the investigation) was substantial. let us assume so. even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. this is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. this court has explained the real basis of bail law in gurcharan singh and ors. etc. v. state (delhi administration) : 1978crilj129 . we do not think there is as yet any.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The offence alleged in this case against the appellant is one Under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Bail was granted by the Sessions Judge after hearing counsel on both sides but it was cancelled by the High Court mainly for the reason that the appellant had simultaneously moved for bail in the Sessions as well as in the High Court without disclosing to the Sessions Court that he had moved for bail in the High Court. This naturally made the High Court feel that the party was not straight-forward in his dealings with the Court The consequence was that the bail already granted was reversed.

2. Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima-facie (according to) the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh and Ors. etc. v. State (Delhi Administration) : 1978CriLJ129 . We do not think there is as yet any allegation against the appellant of interference with the course of justice or other well-established grounds for refusal of bail. In this view, we direct that the appellant be allowed to continue on bail until further orders to the contrary passed by the Sessions Court if good grounds are made out to its satisfaction.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //