What is a Bailable and a Non- Bailable offences?
Section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 defines bailable and non bailable offences. Bailable offence is an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule and it is right of the accused to be released on bail on giving required security.
An offence which is not a bailable offence is a non-bailable offence. In a non- bailable offence, the accused does not have a right to be released on bail. In these offences, the discretion is with the Court. The Court may release the person and may impose conditions on him.
What is a Bail?
Bail implies an order of release of an individual from jail and frames a vital piece of our criminal justice system which assumes each man innocent until (conclusively) proven guilty. Bail is conceded during the pendency of the trial of an appeal. Before bail is granted to the accused, a surety gives a guarantee to the Court that the accused will appear in the Court as and when required. In addition, a whole of cash is to be deposited to guarantee his appearance under the steady gaze of the Court, which generally stands relinquish.
Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 speaks about:
Attempt to murder- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1 [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts 2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]
Illustrations:
a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.
d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A’s keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A, places the food on Z’s table or delivers it to Z’s servant to place it on Z’s table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
In Section 307, the word ‘intention means:
(i) intention to cause death;
(ii) intention to cause such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause death;
(iii) intention to cause such real bodily damage, which injury is adequate in the standard course of nature to cause death.
In this way, the intention to cause death is the embodiment of the offense of attempt to murder. Intention is a man's state of mind/ perspective; direct evidence subsequently with the exception of through his own admission can't be had; and separated from admission they can be demonstrated just by circumstantial evidence.
Along these lines, intention is something which can be assembled from circumstances like the idea of the weapon utilized, the words used by the accused at the ideal opportunity for the demonstration, the intention of the accused, the parts of the body where the wounds are caused, the nature of injuries and the seriousness and perseverance of the blows given and so forth.
The essentials for criminal attempt are:
I) A presence of an aim with respect to the accused to submit a specific offense;
II) Some steps taken towards it after finish of readiness;
III) The progression must be obviously however not really adjusted to the reason outlined;
IV) It must come dangerously close to progress;
V) It must miss the mark concerning the completion of a definitive plan.
Bale under section- 307, elaborated through landmark cases:
Mohammed Arif Din Mohd, Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra, 25th February, 1999
Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This is an application for bail in a case under section 307, IPC On 4-7-1997, sometimes between 7 to 7.30 p.m. Rajiv Roy, son of late Gulshan Roy, a Film Producer Director and Distributor by profession received a telephone call from Dubai and the caller gave him a telephone number of Dubai and asked him to contact Abu Salem. Rajiv Roy telephoned Dubai and the person from the other end said^^vki jktho xSx ds vkWQhl esa cksy jgs gks D;k** and disconnected the telephone. Ten days later, Rajiv Roy received another telephone call from Dubai and asked his operator to talk to the caller. The operator tape recorded the conversation which pertained to a demand of Rs. 20 crores and a threat that he and his family members would be killed if they failed to fulfil it, Thereafter, one day, the said person rang from Dubai and threatened Rajiv Roy's wife and told her that her husband had not telephoned Abu Salem, even after he had been asked to do so. Since Rajiv Roy was very afraid, he contacted police officials of Crime Branch, C.I.D. Mumbai, to provide him with armed protection. On 21-7-1997, the said person again telephoned him from Dubai. His operator Dilip lifted the receiver. The caller threatened Dilip to ask Rajiv Roy to ring up Dubai on the number given by him. He also threatened Roy's wife. It is said that police constable Mohan Singh had been assigned the duty of protecting Rajiv Roy from 12-7-1997 onwards. On 31-7-1997, about 10 a.m. he reported for duty at Roy's residence. At about 12.45 noon, Roy left his residence for his office in his car accompanied by Mohan Singh. At about 4.40 p.m. in the office of Rajiv Roy at Tardeo, Mumbai, the applicant came near the reception counter followed by his associates. He whipped out a pistol and said that since Rajiv Roy had taken a confrontation with Abu Salem, he would be finished. At that time, Constable Mohan Singh stood up with his loaded carbine. Other five accused who had come with the applicant whipped out fire arms and pointed them at the office staff. Mohan Singh sensing danger, pointed out his carbine gun towards the applicant and others and shouted ^^idMks xksyh ekjrh gS D;k!** and thereafter, the applicant and his associates started running towards the stair case followed by Mohan Singh. When Mohan Singh was chasing them at Tardeo Road, the applicant and his associates started firing at him. Mohan Singh in his self-defence started firing with the result that the applicant received bullet injuries on left arm. Immediately, the applicant was apprehended with his pistol. The associates of the applicant however, managed to escape away. On making enquiries, from the applicant, it transpired that he and his associates were working with the gang of the notorious gangster Abu Salem.
Mahavir vs. State of Haryana and Others, 11th December, 2012
After obtaining opinion of Board of Doctors, Section 307 IPC was added. Thereafter, respondent Nos.2 to 5 applied for anticipatory bail before Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal which was allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the present petition for cancellation of bail on the ground that concession of anticipatory bail was granted to the accused, whereas, as per opinion, the offence under Section 307 IPC was added. The accused-respondents were roaming freely in the village and are threatening the petitioner and his family members to face dire consequences. The petitioner is under threat and fear and is not in a position to move freely in the village.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the order of granting bail to the accused respondents.
It has come in the order itself that nature of injury on the person of petitioner was dangerous to life as opined by the doctor. The injury was on the head of the complainant and because of that section 307 IPC was added. The bail was granted by the lower court only on the ground that no illicit arms were recovered from the accused and section 25 of the Arms Act was also deleted. There is a reference of injury to the accused party but nothing has been mentioned as to how the opinion given by the Doctor to the injury attributed to the petitioner. Simply it has been mentioned that being a cross case, it is not possible to determine as to which of the parties was aggressor. Nothing has been said regarding injury and opinion of the doctor as to how section 307 IPC was added. Without discussing anything about nature of injury and the allegations of offence under Section 307 IPC, anticipatory bail has been granted to the accused. The injuries caused to the petitioner as well as other party has been discussed and only by taking note of the injuries caused to the accused party, the bail has been granted.
Yogesh vs. Registrar, 14th November, 2008
After considering the evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer, a Judge of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad submitted report dated 22.1.2001 (Annexure-G pages 151 to 219). The findings of the Inquiry Officer were as under :-
Except charge no.
4 and 6 no other charges are proved against the delinquent.
So far as charge no.4 is concerned, there is no direct evidence to show that corrupt practice was done by the delinquent Mr Vyas. But he has gone beyond his power in enlarging the accused on bail in case of Section 307 I.P. Code etc. Thus we can say that there is possibility of the delinquent for making corrupt practice and we can also say that the delinquent is found guilty of aforesaid acts of misconduct.
In the above background, we are of the view that the petitioner's granting bail for offences punishable under Section 307 IPC in the years 1993 and 1994 cannot be construed as acting in a manner to unduly favour a party or passing orders with corrupt motive. Granting bail in the cases under consideration in 1993- 1994 cannot warrant the penal order of compulsory retirement which has resulted into denial of pensionary benefits for the services rendered since 1981. We are informed that the officer compulsorily retired by way of punishment is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, unless the Government decides in its discretion to grant compassionate pension which is very rarely granted and that too of a very small amount. The impugned order of compulsory retirement, therefore, deserves to be set aside as shockingly disproportionate.
K. Ram Reddy vs. State of A.P. and Anr, 24th November, 1997
My enquiries revealed that, keeping in mind the above procedure and the method in making over the bail applications to the Additional Sessions Courts, some of the Advocates have resorted to certain types of malpractices to get their bail applications made over to any of the Additional District Courts of their choice.
The Modus Operandi is - the Advocate files a bail application falsely mentioning that the offence alleged against the accused is one under Section 307 I.P.C. After it was made over to any of the Additional District Courts, the figures '307' are altered to 302 in the bail application/s wherever the figures '307' occur. In case of offence u/s. 376 IPC, they file bail applications initially mentioning that the offence committed in one u/s. 354 IPC. After it was made over to any of the Addl. District Courts, the figures '354' are altered to '376' in the application/s.
No comments:
Post a Comment