Court Cannot Refuse To Hear Bail Application On Merits Saying Accused Went Back On Promise To Settle : SC [Read Order]

fopxwetn

first_imgTop StoriesCourt Cannot Refuse To Hear Bail Application On Merits Saying Accused Went Back On Promise To Settle : SC [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK3 Oct 2020 7:40 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has observed that a court cannot refuse to hear a bail application on merits on the ground that the accused had failed to comply with the settlement offer made earlier.Observing thus, a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao set aside an order passed by the Madras High Court which dismissed a bail application on the ground that the accused had gone back on the promise…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has observed that a court cannot refuse to hear a bail application on merits on the ground that the accused had failed to comply with the settlement offer made earlier.Observing thus, a bench headed by Justice L Nageswara Rao set aside an order passed by the Madras High Court which dismissed a bail application on the ground that the accused had gone back on the promise to settle.The case(G Selvakumar vs State of Tamil Nadu) arose out of an FIR registered over allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating etc. The accused had sought for interim bail by stating that he will settle the disputes relating to the payment of money once he is released. Based on that, the Court granted him interim bail.Later, the accused told the court that he was facing difficulties to pay the money owing to certain domestic circumstances. The High Court did not appreciate this response of the accused.”Having taken interim bail, he should have honoured the undertaking. If he knew that he would not be in a position to make any payment, he should have prayed for grant of regular bail. After coming out on interim bail, the petitioner even without complying with the undertaking given before the Court, cannot ask for conversion of interim bail into regular bail”, the HC had observed while dismissing the bail application.Challenging this, the accused filed a Special Leave Petition in the top court.The SC observed that the HC ought to have considered the bail application on merits and should not have dismissed it on the ground that he did not fulfill his promise.”In any event, the High Court ought to have heard the bail application on merits and ought not to have dismissed the same on the ground that the petitioner has gone back of the promise made to the High Court on 18.02.2020″, the SC observed. The bench, also including Justice Ajay Rastogi, observed that it was not intending to send the matter back to the HC for fresh consideration and ordered that the accused should be released on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the trial court.Senior Advocate R Basant along with Advocates A Karthik and Sarath S Janardanan appeared for the petitioner.Click here to download the orderRead OrderSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more