Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, Justice Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Date of Judgment: 6 September 2010
Facts of the Case: The Appellant was the husband of the deceased Meera with whom he married on 23rd November, 2005. According to the prosecution, she committed suicide on 5th November, 2008. On the statement of her father Balhari, FIR under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the husband, mother-in-law Phulwati and sister-in-law Gyanwati. After investigation, police submitted the charge sheet. Accused filed an application for discharge along with an application filed by the appellant for grant of bail. Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, by order dated 27th June, 2009 rejected the application of discharge of all the accused excepting the mother-in-law. By order of the same day, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, granted bail to the appellant. Aggrieved by the order of discharge of the mother-in-law and granting bail to the appellant, the informant Balhari filed two separate applications before the High Court. By the impugned order dated 25th May, 2010, the order of discharge had been set aside and the order granting bail to the appellant had been cancelled. Appellant aggrieved by the cancellation of his bail preferred this appeal.
Judgment: Mr. Neeraj Kumar Jain, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge after assigning reasons had granted bail to the appellant and that ought not to have been cancelled by the High Court. He submitted that the parameters for cancellation of bail were entirely different from that for granting of bail. Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned Senior Counsel who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1, however, submitted that without discussing the merits of the case, the trial court had granted bail to the appellant and the same was rightly cancelled by the High Court. He placed reliance in a large number of decisions of the Supreme Court in Puran v. Ram Bilas & Anr. (2001) 6 SCC 338 and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav & Anr. (2004) 7 SCC 528. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court possessed power to cancel the bail granted to an accused by an inferior Court but it is well-settled that the parameters for cancellation of bail and for granting of bail was entirely different. In the present case, the trial court, taking into account the period of custody as also delay in conclusion of the trial, directed for the release of the appellant. The High Court, however, cancelled the bail on its finding that the trial court had not given any reason for granting bail. It also observed that by the same order when the trial court had found materials to frame charge against the appellant, it ought not to have granted bail to him. The Court considered the rival submissions and found that it was not a fit case in which the High Court should have cancelled the bail. The trial court while granting bail took into consideration the period of incarceration and further expected delay in conclusion of the trial. The High Court was found incorrect when it observed that the trial court had not given any reason to grant bail to the appellant. Further, the High Court erred in holding that when there were materials to frame charge against the appellant the trial court ought not to have granted bail. Charges are framed when materials prima facie show the complicity of the accused in the crime. It was not correct to say that bail is granted only in those cases where there are no materials. As the High Court had cancelled the bail on erroneous considerations, the same required to be interfered with by this Court.
Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court whereby it had cancelled the bail granted to the appellant with the observation aforesaid.
By: Roopali Mohan, 2nd Year, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi