The High Court has inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel bail granted to a person accused of a bailable offence in a proper case, where the accused's subsequent conduct shows that he cannot be allowed to be at large pending the trial.

Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR J. : The appellant, along with others, has been charged under S. 120-B of the Indian, Penal Code and S. 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act (8 of 1878). There is no doubt that the offences charged against the appellant are bailable offences. Under S. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellant was released on bail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety for like amount on December 9, 1957 by the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate at Bombay. On January 4, 1958, an application was made by the complainant before the learned Magistrate for cancellation of thew bail; the learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application on the ground that under S. 496 he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against this order, the complainant preferred a revisional application before the High Court of Bombay. Another application was preferred by the complainant before the same Court invoking its inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Chagla C. J. and Datar J. who heard these applications took the view that, under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure the High Court had inherent power to cancel the bail granted to a person accused of a bailable offence and that, in a proper case, such power can and must be exercised in the interests of justice. The learned Judges then considered the material produced before the Court and came to the conclusion that, in the present case, it would not be safe to permit the appellant to be at large. That is why the application made by the complainant invoking the High Courts inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was allowed, the bail-bond executed by the appellant was cancelled and an order was passed directing that the appellant be arrested forthwith and committed to custody. It is against this order that the appellant has come to this Court in appeal by special leave. Special, leave granted to the appellant has, however, been limited to the question of the construction of S. 496 read with S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thus the point of law which falls to be considered in the present appeal is whether, in the case of a person accused of a bailable offence where bail has been granted to him under S. 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it can be cancelled in a proper case by the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure? This question is no doubt of considerable importance and its decision would depend upon the construction of the relevant sections of the Code.

2. The material provisions on the subject of bail are contained in Ss. 496 to 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 496 deals with persons accused of bailable offences. It provides that

"when a person charged with the commission of a bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or is brought before a Court and is prepared at any time, while in the custody of such officer or at any stage of the proceedings before such Court, to give bail, such person shall be released on bail."

The section further leaves it to the discretion of the police officer or the Court if he or it thinks fit to discharge the accused person on his executing a bond without sureties for his appearance and not to take bail from him. Section 497 deals with the question of granting bail in the case of non-bailable offences, A person accused of a non-bailable offence may be released on bail but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This is the effect of S. 497 (1). Sub-section (2) deals with cases where it appears to the officer or the Court that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence but there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt and it lays down that in such cases the accused shal