Supreme Court reiterated the law of bail and cancellation of bail & how the courts should balan
- shrey singh
- Jan 8, 2020
- 3 min read
MYAKALA DHARMARAJAM & ORS. ETC v. THE STATE OF TELANGANA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1974- 1975 of 2019 decided on January 7,2020
2 Judges Bench
L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Facts
A complaint which was registered under Sections 148, 120 B, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Appellant alleging that he attacked the husband of Respondent with stones and he succumbed to the injuries. The Appellants moved applications for bail and the Principal Sessions Judge released the Appellants on bail by imposing certain conditions.
Respondent filed a petition for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C. before the High Court.
The High Court allowed the applications filed for cancellation of bail on the ground that the Principal Sessions Judge did not consider the material available on record before granting bail to the Appellants. The High Court further held that the criminal antecedents of the Appellants were not taken into account by the trial Court.
Question of law
Whether the High Court erred in giving the order of cancellation of bail?
Held
The Supreme Court held that the high court erred in giving order of cancellation of bail. Furthermore re-iterating the law laid down by this court regarding the granting of bail and cancellation of bail. Following was said on these issues:
Regarding granting of bail
The Court said that the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the evidence and witnesses, and obstructing the course of justice etc should be seen as factors to be considered while granting bail. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the Court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. For the purpose of bail, the Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same.
Regarding cancellation of bail
The Court citing the case of Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 481 said that the Court held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. The above grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.
Regarding balancing the right of granting bail and cancellation of bail
The Court said that it must also be remembered that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it interferes with the liberty of the individual and hence it must not be lightly resorted to It is trite law that cancellation of bail can be done in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant material indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail
Judgement Link:
Comments