Summary
The Court upheld cancellation of default bail because a combined NDPS complaint covering both connected recoveries and these accused had already been filed in the competent Omerga court within 180 days. That filing had not been communicated to the Hyderabad court when it granted bail. Fresh regular-bail applications remained available for independent, expeditious consideration; the appellant released under the cancelled order had to surrender.
Issues
- Whether default bail could stand when a timely combined complaint in a competent court had not been brought to the bail court’s notice.
Provisions considered
- Section 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Upheld cancellation of erroneously granted default bail in light of the timely combined complaint. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12)
Held
- Although two cases had been registered following the Hyderabad interception and Omerga factory recovery, the combined complaint filed at Omerga covered both offences and the appellants’ alleged transportation of the substance. Omerga’s jurisdiction to inquire into and try the offence was not disputed. (¶¶ 8, 11, 12)
- The complaint was filed on 6 July 2018, within the 180-day period, before default bail was granted on 12 July. Failure to inform the Hyderabad court of that filing did not sustain the erroneous bail order. The High Court properly exercised its cancellation power under Section 439(2). (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12)
- The appellants could apply afresh for regular bail at Omerga. Such applications must be decided expeditiously on their merits, uninfluenced by the High Court’s or Supreme Court’s observations. Villayutham Nagu, released pursuant to the cancelled order, must surrender before the Omerga Special Court. (¶ 13)
Result
All appeals dismissed subject to liberty to seek fresh regular bail and directions for expeditious independent consideration. Villayutham Nagu directed to surrender; no guilt determination made.