Can Bail be cancelled by the same Court which granted it in the first place? SC answers

Supreme Court: In a batch of criminal appeals by the complainant against four different orders of the Allahabad High Court allowing regular bail of the present four respondents/ accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 352 and 504 read with Section 34 of Penal Code, 1860, the Division Bench of Hima Kohli* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ. allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The accused persons were directed to surrender within two weeks from the date of passing of order.

The Court also said that bail can be cancelled by same Court which granted it, if there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he did not misuse the bail granted to him.

Background

The complainant’s case was that following the previous enmity between the parties, ten persons entered his house and indiscriminately fired at the complainant and his two sons, which led to death of his sons and his nephew was seriously injured. The appellant-complainant. After filing of the chargesheet, the trial commenced, which is pending before the Trial Court. One of the accused was granted bail by the High Court, which came to be cancelled by the Court, observing that it was apparent that he was granted bail on the basis of a co-ordinate Bench granting bail to his father, vide another order, which was ultimately cancelled.

Analysis and Decision

Whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 439(1) of the CrPC for granting regular bail in favour of the accused persons ?

The Court perused the post mortem report and noted that the injuries inflicted on the deceased persons was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The Court also noted that the deposition of four eye-witnesses had been recorded and all of them had attributed a role to the accused persons. Referring to various authorities on relevant factors for considering bail, the Court said that while considering as to whether bail ought to be granted in a matter involving a serious criminal offence, the Court must consider the nature of the accusations made against the accused, the manner in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, the gravity of the offence, the role attributed to the accused, the criminal antecedents of the accused, the probability of tampering of the witnesses and repeating the offence, the likelihood of the accused being unavailable in the event bail is granted, the possibility of obstructing the proceedings and evading the courts of justice.

Further, the Court reiterated that bail once granted, ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner, however, an unreasoned or perverse order of bail is open to interference by the superior Court. If there are serious allegations against the accused, even if he has not misused the bail granted to him, such an order can be cancelled by the same Court that has granted the bail. Bail can also be revoked by a superior Court if it transpires that the courts below have ignored the relevant material available on record or not looked into the gravity of the offence or the impact on the society resulting in such an order.

The Court explained the considerations that weigh the Appellate Court for setting aside the bail order, includes any supervening circumstances that may have occurred after granting relief to the accused, the conduct of the accused while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to procrastinate, resulting in delaying the trial, any threats extended to the witnesses while on bail, any attempt on the part of the accused to tamper the evidence. However, the Court said that the Appellate Court must be cautious that at the stage of granting bail, only a prima facie case needs to be examined and detailed reasons relating to the merits of the case that may cause prejudice to the accused, ought to be avoided. Hence, the bail order should reveal the factors that have been considered by the Court for granting relief to the accused.

The Court referred to Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra, (2022) 9 SCC 321 wherein, it was observed that the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the CrPC is of wide amplitude and the High Court or a Sessions Court, has their discretion while deciding an application for bail, however, the same is not unfettered. The order passed must reflect due application of judicial mind following well established principles of law and Courts would be slow to interfere with the order where bail has been granted by the Courts below. But if it is found that such an order is illegal or perverse or based upon utterly irrelevant material, the appellate Court would be well within its power to set aside and cancel the bail.

In the matter at hand, the Court said that the primary factor that swayed the High Court in granting bail to one of the accused was that even though the prosecution’s version was that eleven accused persons had assaulted the complainant and his family members, only three persons had sustained injuries and two had expired on the side of the complainant. The Court noted that the High Court also observed that the investigation conducted by the police was one-sided and the case set up by the accused side was ignored. Hence, the Court said that the High Court completely lost sight of the principles that conventionally governed a Court’s discretion at the time of deciding whether bail ought to be granted or not. The Court said that the High Court ignored the fact that the complainant was stuck to his version recorded in the FIR and that even after entering the witness-box, the complainant and three eyewitnesses specified the roles of the accused persons in the entire incident. The Court also pointed that the High Court overlooked the previous criminal history of the accused persons. The Court also added that the High Court overlooked the period of custody of the accused persons for such a grave offence.

Thus, the Court opined that the accused persons did not deserve the concession of bail. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the four impugned orders.

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE