Woman's bail restored after trial court's revocation

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has restored the bail granted to a 60-year-old woman saying it could not have been cancelled by the Trial Court without issuing notice to the surety first. The woman had visited the United Kingdom to meet her granddaughter who was in a medical emergency. She had failed to secure the permission of the Trial Court where a criminal case against her is pending.

The Trial Court had therefore cancelled her bail. Sarita Sharma, a resident of Padmanabhanagar in Bengaluru, approached the High Court after the XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, a special court for CBI cases, issued a nonbailable warrant against her and cancelled her bail on February 24, 2023. She is accused No.8 in a case pending before the special court under The Prize Chit and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act and under Section 420 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Her counsel argued in the HC that she was regularly appearing before the Trial Court and due to a medical emergency, left for the UK to attend to the medical treatment of her granddaughter. Her advocate had filed an exemption application before the Trial Court which was allowed twice but later a NBW was issued and her bond canceled on ground that she left for the UK without notice of Trial Court.

The exemption application before the Trial Court had mentioned that she was in the UK on medical emergency and she had obtained a medical emergency visa. But this aspect was not considered by the lower court. The HC recorded the submissions made by the counsel.

“The learned counsel submits that the Trial Court without considering the same, cancelled the bail which reveals the petitioner was appearing before the Court, on many hearings she was continuously appearing and due to medical emergency she left the country for attending her granddaughter and the trial Court before cancelling the bail could have issued notice to the surety calling for explanation and thereafter should have cancelled the bail. It was also noted that no condition imposed by the Trial Court, while granting bail that she should not leave the headquarters or country without prior permission,” the HC noted. The HC said that a notice to the surety should have been issued.

“When there is no condition imposed by the Trial Court not to leave the country without prior permission, the question of cancelling the bail, on the ground for violating the terms and bail does not arise. The Trial Court ought to have issued notice to the surety thereafter, proceeding in accordance with law,” Justice K Natarajan said in his judgement recently.

Setting aside the lower court order, the HC said, “Looking at the facts, the Trial Court holding that petitioner left the UK without prosecution is not correct. Therefore, the petition is allowed and cancellation of bail is hereby set aside. The NBW is kept in abeyance.”