VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned order setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the order dated 9.4.2002 as confirmed by the order dated 5.6.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 438, 439(2) r/w 482 and 362-Anticipatory Bail, its cancellation and classification/modification-IPC 1860-Sections 302 r/w 120B-Offences under-Appellants charged in FIR-Appellants applied for anticipatory bail on ground of false impleading due to political rivalary-Allowed by Addl. Sessions Judge-State applied for cancellation to High Court as appellant not cooperating in investigation-Single Judge directed appellant to cooperate but did not cancel bail-Application moved for clarification-Another Single Judge cancelled the bail on ground that there was oversight or omission in earlier order, the rival intention was cancellation of bail-Appeals against to Supreme Court-Whether the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants could be sustained? (Yes)-Appeals allowed-Questions left open-Whether an order of clarification or modification could be passed by High Court in this case or whether bar of Section 362 Cr.P.C. applies in this case -Case law discussed.
       Held : While stating the facts in the beginning, we have noticed that the appellants joined investigation whenever required and as a matter of fact they were interrogated on two occasions for sufficient time. The appellants were named as accused for committing offence under Section 120-B IPC almost after a period of four and half months from the date of the murder, that too based on the disclosure statement of hardened criminal; the statement of Kishan on whose statement the appellants were involved in the offence was proved to be false and police got him discharged. The submission of the learned Public Prosecutor that earlier investigation made by the police officers and scrutinized by the superiors was faulty and mala fide, is not a ground to put against the appellants at this stage. The appellant No.1 has also alleged that he is falsely involved in the case because of political rivalry and he was threatened for extracting money; in that regard he had also made complaint to the police seeking protection. Unfortunately, the High Court in the impugned order dated 21.12.2001, cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants and in the subsequent order dated 22.2.2002, did not consider the contentions raised on behalf of the parties objectively and in proper perspective and did not deal with the reasons recorded and consideration made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judges in the orders dated 9.4.2001 and 5.6.2001 granting anticipatory bail. The High Court has simply observed in the order dated 21.12.2001 that the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, had not taken all facts into account and that he granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on 9.4.2001 when the case was at initial stage. We find this statement is factually incorrect looking to the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judges and the records of the case. The learned Sessions Judge had taken pains to notice the relevant facts and circumstances of the case and that the case was not at the initial stage. The High Court has simply stated that the order of the learned Sessions Judge is based on exercise of judicial discretion in erroneous manner without considering the material on the file. It is strange that the High Court has made such an observation without showing how the judicial discretion exercised by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was erroneous. A considered order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge supported by reasons in exercise of judicial discretion does not become erroneous by merely dubbing or calling it as such. In our view, in the light of what is stated above, both the orders of the learned Addl. Sessions Judges dated 9.4.2001 and 5.6.2001 after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent required for exercise of judicial discretion in the matter of granting bail are sustainable. The judicial discretion exercised in granting anticipatory bail, in our opinion, is neither perverse nor erroneous. On the other hand, they are based on relevant considerations supported by reasons. The High Court has observed "it is alleged in the present case that the appellant No. 1 wielded great influence and had obtained bail by dubious means" . This observation is not based on any finding. When the learned Addl. Sessions Judges have passed the orders granting anticipatory bail exercising judicial discretion, there is no warrant to say that such an order of bail is obtained by dubious means. The High Court, except referring to two decisions as to the position of law, failed to notice the facts and relevant aspects of the case on hand to apply them. (Para 14)
       Normally, very cogent and overwhelming grounds or circumstances are required to cancel the bail already granted. In the present case, the High Court, it appears, did not bear this distinction in mind and cancelled the bail in a mechanical manner. Thus, in our view, the High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned orders setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the order dated 9.4.2001 as confirmed by the order dated 5.6.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. The impugned orders of the High Court under the circumstances are unsustainable. (Paras 15 and 16)
       Held finally : Hence, we set aside the impugned orders and restore the order dated 5.6.2001 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari. The appeals are allowed. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

We feel it necessary to state the facts leading to the filing of these appeals giving some details. There is a Trust by name - Shri Baba Mast Nath Ayurvedic and Sanskrit Shikshan Sansthan. Mahant Sh. Shreyo Nath removed Karan Nath, Azad Nath and others from the Committee of the Trust and appointed the appellant No.1 as his successor. Mahant Shreyo Nath expired on 7.1.1985. The appellant No.1 became the Mahant of the Gaddi of Shri Baba Mast Nath Math at Asthal Bohar, Rohtak. The appellant No.1 claims to have dedicated himself to the field of development of education, social reforms and all-round progress of various institutions run and established by the Math; he is the founder and the chairperson of number of institutions including the dental college and hospital, engineering college, ayurvedic college, charitable eye hospital named after Baba Mast Nath; he has undertaken projects for setting up a blind school, orphanage, deaf and dumb school, Shree Mast Nath Medical College and Shree Baba Mast Nath Deemed University; and claims to serve the poor and downtrodden persons to uplift their educational status. It is also stated that the various institutions run by Math do not receive any aid from the Government or Non-Governmental Organizations.

2. He contested election in the year 1999 to Haryana State Assembly as an Independent candidate against the wishes of Shri Om Prakash Chautala who wanted him to contest from his party. It is further alleged that Shri Chautala demanded money and the appellant No. 1 invited his wrath by refusing to meet his demand. He states that Shri O.P. Kaushik, the Vice - Chancellor of M.D. University, Rohtak, also demanded huge sum of money from him who subsequently contested Assembly election in the year 1999 on the party ticket of Shri Om Prakash Chautala. Shri Kaushik had passed orders cancelling admissions made to the institutions run by the appellant No.1 which were subsequently set aside by the courts. He is falsely involved in the case in the background stated above with the change of Government in the State.

3. An F.I.R. was registered with police station Bawal stating that on 24.1.1999 at about 5.00 P.M. complainant Randhir Singh, S/o Chhote Lal had gone to see Baba Azad Nath (deceased) in Shiv temple at village Assalwas. At about 6.15 P.M., Baba Azad Nath came out and was sitting with Sewaks Tej Pal, S/o Ami Lal, Jaina S/o of Prabhata and Ombir S/o of Ram Pal and others. At that time, one man aged 25/26 years wearing a pant and shirt and a black loi came there and wanted to smoke sulpha, on which Baba replied that it could not be done but he could take meal. The young man refused to take meal. On asking, he said that he was Sangwan from Jind. Baba told him to go from front gate if he did not want to take meal. Thereafter complainant and others started taking meals and Baba had gone for urination. Within 4-5 minutes, there was a big noise of Phatakas (fire works) and Baba gave a call "Bhajjio"(run). On hearing, the complainant and others left their meals and went towards back side and found that Baba was lying with his mouth downward near a tree with bleeding from the right side of his chest. In the F.I.R., it is further stated that complainant and others had doubts that person by hiding in the cover of darkness had fired at Baba and he died because of gun shots and that if the person comes before them, they could identify him.

4. It is the case of the appellant No. 1 that the police with mala fide and oblique motive and under the pressure of the present Government of Haryana wanted to implicate him in F.I.R. No. 17/99 dated 24-1-1999 registered under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. A false case was tried to be made out against him to mar his reputation and create hurdles in the developmental activities. The police officials attempted to falsely involve him in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1050

VERY IMPORTANT POINTThe High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned order setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the order dated 9.4.2002 as confirmed by the order dated 5.6.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari.

Cases Referred (2)

VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court committed a manifest and serious error in passing the impugned order setting aside the anticipatory bail granted to the appellants by the order dated 9.4.2002 as confirmed by the order dated 5.6.2001 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari.