Important Point
Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to.

Judgment

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Appellants challenge the Order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court cancelling the bail granted to them by Order dated 7.9.2006 in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 10719 of 2006. The application for cancellation of bail was filed by the respondent No.1. Appellants 1, 2 & 3 are arrayed as accused Nos. 1, 2 & 4. Five persons were granted bail by Order dated 7.9.2006 in Criminal Misc. Case No. 10719 of 2006. By the impugned Order the learned Single Judge directed cancellation of bail granted to the present appellants while holding that the two others being ladies there was no need to cancel the bail granted to them.

2.Though various points were urged in support of the appeal primarily it was submitted that no reasons have been given for canceling the bail.

3.Learned counsel for the respondent No.1-complainant submitted that though the Order canceling bail has not elaborately dealt with the circumstances to warrant cancellation of bail, the same is in Order.

4.The appellants and the other two in respect of whom the High Court has not interfered, were granted provisional bail by Order dated 3.5.2006 which came to be confirmed on 7.9.2006. It was stated that the husband and wife have been residing together in the matrimonial home. Earlier there was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights filed by appellant No. 2 who withdrew the same after the provisional bail was confirmed and instituted Matrimonial case No. 34 of 2006 for divorce. According to the complaint on 10.10.2006, there was an incident and therefore the bail was to be cancelled. The High Court, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellants, has not indicated the reasons for directing cancellation of bail.

6.It is trite law that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings. By a majority Judgment in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra,1 the circumstances when bail granted can be cancelled were highlighted in the following words: (SCC pp. 289-90, para 11):

“11.On a conjoint reading of Sections 57 and 167 of the Code it is clear that the legislative object was to ensure speedy investigation after a person has been taken in custody. It expects that the investigation should be completed within 24 hours and if this is not possible within 15 days and failing that within the time stipulated in clause (a) of the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code. The law expects that the investigation must be completed with dispatch and the role of the Magistrate is to oversee the course of investigation and to prevent abuse of the law by the investigating agency. As stated earlier, the legislative history shows that before the introduction of the proviso to Section 167(2) the maximum time allowed to the investigating agency was 15 days under sub-section (2) of Section 167 failing which the accused could be enlarged on bail. From experience this was found to be insufficient particularly in complex case and hence the proviso was added to enable the Magistrate to detain the accused in custody for a period exceeding 15 days but not exceeding the outer limit fixed under the proviso (a) to that sub-section. We may here mention that the period prescribed by the proviso has been enlarged by State amendments and wherever there is such enlargement, the proviso will have to be read accordingly. The purpose and object of providing for the release of the accused under sub-section (2) of Section 167 on the failure of the investigating agency completing the investigation within the extended time allowed by the proviso was to instil a sense of urgency in the investigating agency to complete the investigation promptly and within the statutory time frame. The deeming fiction of correlating the release on bail under sub-section (2) of Section 167 with Chapter XXXIII i.e. Sections 437 and 439 of the Code, was to treat the Order as one passed under the latter provisions. Once the Order of