Cancellation of bail

Cancellation of Bail

Bail - Cancellation of - Court granting bail did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances

"10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Session regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, 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 witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. 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. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While cancelling the bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials 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. Such orders are against the well-recognised principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this Court are much wider, this Court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail." in Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180

Bail - Cancellation of - Where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice

"9. 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." Myakala Dharmarajam vs. The State of Telangana, (2020) 2 SCC 743

Bail - Cancellation of - Where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons

where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons, the interests of justice may require that the order be set aside and bail be cancelled. The recording of no reasons is one end of the spectrum. The other end of the domain for interference with an order granting anticipatory bail (into which the present case settles) is where the reasons are contrary to the material on record and hence found to suffer from perversity . Puran vs. Ramvilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338

Bail – Setting aside of - Setting aside of an "unjustified, illegal or perverse order" granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged, requiring cancellation

Bail – Setting aside of - Order granting bail by high court set aside - It is a well settled principle of law that the setting aside of an "unjustified, illegal or perverse order" granting bail is distinct from the cancellation of bail on the ground of the supervening misconduct of the accused or because some new facts have emerged, requiring cancellation - The correctness of an order granting bail is subject to assessment by an appellate or superior court and it may be set aside on the ground that the Court granting bail did not consider material facts or crucial circumstances - In Puran vs. Ramvilas, (2001) 6 SCC 338 this Court has held that where an order granting bail ignores material on record or if a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime without furnishing reasons, the interests of justice may require that the order be set aside and bail be cancelled - The recording of no reasons is one end of the spectrum - The other end of the domain for interference with an order granting anticipatory bail (into which the present case settles) is where the reasons are contrary to the material on record and hence found to suffer from perversity. #2020 SCeJ 2201

Bail – Cancellation of - Seriousness of Offence – Manipulation and forgery of court records

Bail – Cancellation of - Seriousness of Offence – Manipulation and forgery of court records - Looking to the very serious allegations of forging/manipulating court order and having taken advantage of the same, the High Court is not justified in releasing the Respondent 2 on bail - Merely because the charge-sheet is filed is no ground to release the accused on bail - The submission on behalf of the accused that as the record is now in the court's custody there is no chance of tampering is concerned, the allegation against the respondent accused are of tampering/forging/manipulating the court record which was in the custody of the court - Seriousness of the offence is one of the relevant considerations while considering the grant of bail, which has not been considered at all by the High Court while releasing Respondent accused on bail - IPC , Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B.

2021 SCeJ 321 NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Bail - Forging/manipulating the Court record

Bail - Forging/manipulating the Court record - Forging and/or manipulating the court record and getting benefit of such forged/manipulated court record is a very serious offence - If the Court record is manipulated and/or forged, it will hamper the administration of justice - Forging/manipulating the Court record and taking the benefit of the same stands on altogether a different footing than forging/manipulating other documents between two individuals - Therefore, the High Court ought to have been more cautious/serious in granting the bail to a person who is alleged to have forged/manipulated the court record and taken the benefit of such manipulated and forged court record more particularly when he has been charge-sheeted having found prima facie case and the charge has been framed - IPC , Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B.

2021 SCeJ 321 NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Bail - Beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order

Bail - Once he is the beneficiary of such forged/manipulated court order and having taken advantage of such order thereafter it will not be open for the respondent-accused to contend that it might have been done by his Pairokar on his behalf - Bail cancelled - IPC , Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B.

2021 SCeJ 321 NAVEEN SINGH v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Factors laid down

Court ordinarily would not interfere with a High Court’s order granting or rejecting bail to an accused. Nonetheless, it was equally imperative for the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the ratio set by a catena of decisions of this Court - Factors laid down:

(i) Whether there was a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence;

(ii) nature and gravity of accusations;

(iii) severity of the punishment in the event of a conviction;

(iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if granted bail;

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused;

(vi) likelihood of repetition of the offence;

(vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and

(viii) danger of justice being thwarted by grant of bail.

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Another JT 2010 (12) SC 45

History Sheeter

When a stand was taken that the accused was a history sheeter, it was imperative for the High Courts to scrutinise every aspect and not capriciously record that the accused was entitled to be released on bail on the ground of parity.

Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. [JT 2015 (9) SC 61]

Criminal antecedents

When citizens were scared to lead a peaceful life and heinous offences were obstructions in the establishment of a well-ordered society, the courts play an even more important role, and the burden is heavy. It emphasized on the need to have a proper analysis of the criminal antecedents of the accused.

Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh [JT 2012 (9) SC 155]