Bail — Ehtesab  Bureau Act —  Power of High Court

  1. S. 10(2) — From the language employed, it is pertinent to note that as regards the Code of Criminal Procedure, ouster operates only to the extent of grant of bail to an accused person under the Ehtesab Act because then reference thereafter relates to no other provisions of the Code — Should the provision, as it is, be taken to mean that the High Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of this section in the Act stands completely ousted? No such construction could, in our view, be placed to the section for the simple reason that there are other important provisions conferring much wider powers on the High Court in the matter of grant of bail. The State  v. Javed Iqbal 2001 SCR 1 (F)
  2. S. 10(2)(B) — Ouster of jurisdiction — Bail — The Legislature deemed it proper to use the word ‘bail’ in sub-section 2 of section 10 of Ehtesab Act while ousting the jurisdiction of ‘other Courts’ other than the Ehtesab Court which implies that the Legislature intended to oust the jurisdiction to release a person on bail, irrespective of various provisions which can be pressed into service while allowing bail to an accused person — The general word ‘bail’ employed by Legislature in the aforesaid provision clearly indicates the intention to take away the jurisdiction of all the Courts except the Ehtesab Court to release a person on bail. The State v. Javed Iqbal  2001 SCR 1 (D)
  3. At bail stage the Court has to make tentative assessment of the material i.e. F.I.R., statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and version of accused, if any — Deeper appreciation of evidence is not permissible — Only a bird-eye view of the evidence/material has to taken. Shoaib Anwar v. Malik Muhammad Iqbal and 5 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1195 (B)
  4.  While dealing with the bail matters, the Courts have to confirm themselves only to the material collected by the prosecution in favour of F.I.R., the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and defence version. Allegation was that after recovery amount from different account holders for depositing into respective accounts, they issued them the deposit slips with their signatures but did not deposit amount in the accounts of accounts-holder. Bail was refused. Malik Mudassar Hayat v. The State through Adv.-Gen., Azad Jammu and Kashmir  2013 SCR 854 (B) 
error: Content is protected !!