The Bombay high court on Friday observed that bail cannot be cancelled in case of breach of an undertaking given to court; instead, contempt proceedings can be initiated against the accused in such a
The Bombay high court on Friday observed that bail cannot be cancelled in case of breach of an undertaking given to court; instead, contempt proceedings can be initiated against the accused in such a situation.
A division bench of Justice A.S. Oka and Justice A.A. Sayed made the observation while hearing an appeal filed by Kunal Padmakar, who is facing charges of rape filed by a woman who was in a live-in relationship with the applicant. The bench observed that the undertaking of marriage was not the condition for bail, and it was not a breach of condition, so, Mr Padmakar’s bail should not have been cancelled. The bench expressed the view that if the accused did not fulfill undertaking, there was an option of contempt proceedings against him.
Advocate S.K. Halwasia, while seeking quashing of charges filed by prosecution, argued that the order of the Sessions court cancelling Mr Padmakar’s bail was not correct as he did not breach any condition of bail. Advocate Halwasia’s contention was that both parties wanted to get married but due to some reason, marriage could not take place.
The prosecution’s case was that the complainant and the accused got in touch with each other on social media and started living together. Later, their relationship ended on a very bad note and the woman filed a case of rape against Mr Padmakar. The applicant was arrested and kept behind bars for nearly 20 days after which, he was granted bail.
Thereafter, upon the complainant’s request, the Sessions Court cancelled the applicant’s bail on grounds that he had given an undertaking to the court that he would marry the woman but did not fulfill his promise. The high court in January 2015 stayed the lower court’s order cancelling Mr Padmakar’s bail on grounds that though the applicant had given an undertaking to the court saying he wanted to marry the complainant, that was clearly not the condition of bail. The stay remained and the matter came up for final hearing before the high court.
In his order, Justice Patel said, “In the impugned order dated December 17, 2014, by which the Additional Sessions Judge has cancelled bail, it was inter alia held that the promise of marriage was a condition of bail, and that condition having been breached, bail is liable to be cancelled. Ex facie, this is entirely unsustainable. There is no question of promise of marriage ever having been a condition of bail. No such condition is possible in law. The Magistrate’s order has been entirely misread and misconstrued.”
Court’s observation The HC order said: “Bail cannot be cancelled because there is breach of undertaking given to a court. The option of contempt proceedings in such a situation is open”.
