1994 JTR(SC) 1178
1995 1 AICLR 1 ; 1995 1 ALT(Cri)(SC) 379 ; 1995 CriLR 81 ; 1995 CriLR(Cal) 124 ; 1994 3 Crimes(SC) 1013 ; 1995 1 JT 127 ; 1994 4 Scale 1119 ; 1995 1 SCC 349 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 237 ; 1994 Supp6 SCR 69 ; 1995 KHC 3286
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand & M.K. Mukherjee, JJ.
Dolat Ram & Ors. - Appellants
versus
State of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 839 of 1994
Decided on 24-11-1994
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow accused to retain his freedom.
Act Referred :CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE : S.439
(A) The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 439, govern the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where an individual apprehends arrest in relation to an alleged offence. In this matter, the applicability of the said provision was examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the context of a FIR relating to a dowry death, where the appellants sought anticipatory bail on the basis of their separate residence and lack of a prima facie case against them at the initial stage of investigation. The High Court, while exercising its power to cancel such anticipatory bail, was required to consider the principles governing the cancellation of bail as distinguished from the rejection of bail at the initial stage.
(B) Key legal principles include that anticipatory bail can be granted at the initial stage of investigation considering relevant circumstances such as separate residence, and that the cancellation of such bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The court must distinguish between the grounds for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, and bail should not be cancelled mechanically without considering whether supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
Facts of the case:
An order of anticipatory bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge to the appellants in a dowry death case based on their separate residence and other relevant considerations. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled the bail observing that no prima facie case was made out and that the matter could not be taken lightly, directing the appellants to be taken into custody. An appeal was filed challenging the cancellation of bail.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail as it overlooked the relevant considerations for granting bail at the initial stage and misapplied the principles governing cancellation of bail. The cancellation was deemed unjustified as no abuse of the concession of bail or any other supervening circumstances were brought to notice.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants at the initial stage of investigation in a dowry death case.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cancellation of anticipatory bail granted at the initial stage requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and the High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail initially and for cancelling bail already granted. The appellants had not abused the concession of bail, and the order of cancellation was not justified.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail is restored.
(A) The provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically Section 439, govern the grant of anticipatory bail in cases where an individual apprehends arrest in relation to an alleged offence. In this matter, the applicability of the said provision was examined by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in the context of a FIR relating to a dowry death, where the appellants sought anticipatory bail on the basis of their separate residence and lack of a prima facie case against them at the initial stage of investigation. The High Court, while exercising its power to cancel such anticipatory bail, was required to consider the principles governing the cancellation of bail as distinguished from the rejection of bail at the initial stage.
(B) Key legal principles include that anticipatory bail can be granted at the initial stage of investigation considering relevant circumstances such as separate residence, and that the cancellation of such bail requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances. The court must distinguish between the grounds for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, and bail should not be cancelled mechanically without considering whether supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial.
Facts of the case:
An order of anticipatory bail was granted by the Additional Sessions Judge to the appellants in a dowry death case based on their separate residence and other relevant considerations. Subsequently, the High Court cancelled the bail observing that no prima facie case was made out and that the matter could not be taken lightly, directing the appellants to be taken into custody. An appeal was filed challenging the cancellation of bail.
Findings of Court:
The High Court was found to have erred in cancelling the anticipatory bail as it overlooked the relevant considerations for granting bail at the initial stage and misapplied the principles governing cancellation of bail. The cancellation was deemed unjustified as no abuse of the concession of bail or any other supervening circumstances were brought to notice.
Issues:
Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants at the initial stage of investigation in a dowry death case.
Ratio Decidendi:
The cancellation of anticipatory bail granted at the initial stage requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, and the High Court failed to appreciate the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail initially and for cancelling bail already granted. The appellants had not abused the concession of bail, and the order of cancellation was not justified.
Result:
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the High Court is set aside, and the order of the Additional Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail is restored.
ORDER
Leave granted.
In a case arising out of FIR No. 735 dated 8.11.1993, relating to the alleged dowry death of Smt. Sunita - wife of Anil Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak granted anticipatory bail to the parents and the brother of the husband of the deceased Smt. Sunita and directed that they be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount in the event of their arrest to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. No bail has however been granted to the husband - Anil Kumar. The State of Haryana filed a petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to the appellants by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak on November 12, 1993. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order dated 8.9.1994, cancelled the bail observing:
"Dowry death is a serious matter and cannot be taken so lightly. No positive finding has been recorded by the Addl. Sessions Judge in his order to the effect that the respondents and the deceased were living separately. No prima facie case is made out which could justify the grant of anticipatory bail. To my view of thinking, concession of anticipatory bail granted by the Addl. Sessions Judge, was totally uncalled for. The order dated November 12, 1993 is, therefore, set aside and the respondents are directed to be taken into custody."
The appellants are aggrieved of the cancellation of the anticipatory bail, granted to them. Hence this appeal.
2. It appears to us that whereas the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not justified in observing in the last paragraph of his order while granting anticipatory bail "it appears that possibly these accused-applicants have been roped in falsely", at that initial stage, when possibly the investigation was not even completed let alone, any evidence had been led at the trial, the High Court also fell in error in cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants for the reasons, which have been extracted by us above. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had noticed that even according to the statement in the FIR, the appellants were living separately from the deceased and her husband and that the factum of separate residence was also supported by the ration card. These considerations were relevant considerations for dealing with an application for grant of anticipatory bail.
3. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted: The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted.
4. We are, therefore, satisfied that the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the appellants, for the reason given by the High Court, was not justified. Nothing has been brought to our notice either from which any inference may possibly be drawn that the appellants have in any manner, whatsoever, abused the concession of bail during the intervening period.
5. We, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 12th November, 1993.
Appeal Allowed.
For Citation : (1995) 1 SCC 349 = 1995 SCC (Crl.) 237