1999 JTR(SC) 231
1999 AIR(SC) 3026 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2955 ; 1999 AllMR(Cri)(SC) 1682 ; 1999 CrLJ 4063 ; 2000 SCC(Cri) 1508 ; 1999 KHC 1706
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., M. SRINIVASAN AND N. SANTOSH KUMAR HEGDE, JJ.
Subhendu Mishra, Appellan
Versus
Subrat Kumar Mishra and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1999 (arising out of S. L. P. (Cri.) No. 3020 of 1998, D/- 22-2-1999.
Cancellation of bail already granted requires cogent and overwhelming circumstances, such as interference with justice or risk of absconding. A clear distinction must be maintained between the grounds for the initial rejection of bail and the grounds for its subsequent cancellation.
Act
Referred
:CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE
: S.439
(A) Criminal Law - Bail - Cancellation of bail - Distinction between rejection of bail at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted - Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted - Grounds for cancellation include interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice, evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice, abuse of the concession granted to the accused, or the possibility of the accused absconding - 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. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court was cancelled by the High Court on a petition filed by the brother of the deceased. The State had not chosen to question the grant of bail in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court overlooked the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. The order of the High Court was passed in a mechanical manner and cannot be sustained.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail already granted by the lower court without the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of bail already granted requires the existence of supervening circumstances or cogent reasons such as interference with the administration of justice or risk of absconding; it cannot be done mechanically by applying the same standards used for the initial rejection of bail.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
Bail granted to the appellant by the Sessions Court was cancelled by the High Court on a petition filed by the brother of the deceased. The State had not chosen to question the grant of bail in the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The High Court overlooked the distinction between the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. The order of the High Court was passed in a mechanical manner and cannot be sustained.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail already granted by the lower court without the existence of cogent and overwhelming circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: Cancellation of bail already granted requires the existence of supervening circumstances or cogent reasons such as interference with the administration of justice or risk of absconding; it cannot be done mechanically by applying the same standards used for the initial rejection of bail.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Bail-Cancellation - Established that cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for the cancellation of bail already granted, distinguishing it from the initial rejection of bail.
Judgement
JUDGMENT :- Leave granted.
2. The bail granted to the appellant by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge on 8th August, 1997 was cancelled by the High Court on 28th August, 1997 on a petition filed by the brother of the deceased. The State had, however, not chosen to question the grant of bail in the High Court.
3. We have perused the order of the High Court and heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. In Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 while drawing a distinction between rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail already granted, it was opined by this Court :
". . . . . . . . . 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."
5. These principles appear to have been totally lost sight of by the High Court while cancelling the bail. The High Court overlooked the distinction of the factors while cancelling the bail of the appellant in a rather mechanical manner. The order of the High Court, under the circumstances, cannot be sustained. The same is set aside and that of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge dated 8th August, 1997 is restored. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
6. Nothing said by the High Court or by us hereinabove shall be construed as any expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The trial Court shall expedite the trial.
Order accordingly