Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2009 Supreme(SC) 1549

2009(6) Supreme 564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha,JJ.
Hazari Lal Das —Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal & Anr —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1732 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8565/2008)
Decided on 08-09-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ambika Ray, Zaki Ahmad Khan, M. Khairati, Irshad Ahmad, Advs., for the Appellants.
For the Respondents:Tara Chandra Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Jitendra Mohapatra, Shibashish Pattanaik, Merusagar Samantaray, Advs., for the Respondents.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 438 – Anticipatory Bail – Arrest of appellant on a complaint regarding offences under Sections 403, 409, 420, 467/34 IPC – Application for anticipatory bail by appellant – Allowed by Sessions judge –Complainant approached High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail – High Court cancelled anticipatory bail granted by Sessions Judge – Appeal – Although High Court did notice in impugned order that considerations which should be in the mind of the court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of cancellation of bail, yet we find that these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside – Nothing on record that there had been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant – Nothing even on record that concession granted to him had been abused in any manner – No supervening circumstances had surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail –Held judicial discretion exercised by Sessions Judge in granting anticipatory bail had been interfered with by High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances – Hence impugned order held unsustainable – Appeal allowed (Paras 8 to 11)
       Facts of the Case :
        Present appeal has been filed against order passed by High Court canceling anticipatory bail granted to appellant.
       Findings of the Court :
        Nothing on record that there had been interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice by the appellant. Nothing even on record that concession granted to him had been abused in any manner. No supervening circumstances had surfaced nor shown justifying cancellation of anticipatory bail. Held judicial discretion exercised by Sessions Judge in granting anticipatory bail had been interfered with by High Court in the absence of cogent and convincing circumstances. Hence impugned order was held unsustainable.
       Result : Appeal allowed.

Judgement Key Points

The legal document indicates that the appellate court reviewed the order of the High Court which had canceled the anticipatory bail granted by the lower court. The appellate court emphasized that the order of bail was granted after considering the relevant factors and exercising judicial discretion appropriately. The court noted that the High Court's order lacked consideration of the distinction between initial bail rejection and the cancellation of an already granted bail, and it failed to account for the absence of any supervening circumstances justifying cancellation (!) (!) (!) .

Specifically, the document highlights that there is no mention or record of the earlier bail order being invalid or improperly granted, nor any indication that the appellant had violated the conditions of bail or interfered with justice (!) . The appellate court therefore found that the cancellation of the bail order was not justified and that the earlier bail order should be presumed valid unless there is clear evidence to the contrary.

In summary, the legal reasoning suggests that the absence of any mention of or evidence regarding the earlier bail order's invalidity or misconduct supports the conclusion that the order was properly granted and should not be canceled without cogent reasons.

ORDER

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. On the basis of the complaint made by Jayanta Naskar, Secretary, Sambhunagar High School, P.O. Sambhunagar, a First Information Report being FIR No.50/2008 was lodged on May 30, 2008 under Sections 403, 409, 420, 467/34 IPC, at Police Station Gosaba, District 24 Parganas (South). It is alleged that appellant who is Headmaster of Sambhunagar High School opened a bank account No. 0855010083094 with the U.B.I., Lalbazar Branch, Kolkata on April 30, 2008; that the appellant introduced his servant Gour Dhara as a secretary of the school; that the said account was opened jointly with his servant and that he deposited a cheque of Rs.6,00,000/- which had come to the school from Sports and Youth Services (Sports Wing), Government of West Bengal, with an intention to misappropriate the said amount. It is also alleged that the said account was opened by the appellant without any resolution of the Managing Committee of the school and that he submitted false and forged copy of the minutes of the meeting No.15 dated April 26, 2008 with the seal of the Headmaster, Sambhunagar High School.

3. The appellant made an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Sessions Judge, Alipore, District 24 Parganas (South).

4. Learned Sessions Judge (I/C) after hearing the counsel for the appellant and the Public Prosecutor enlarged the appellant on anticipatory bail vide Order dated July 3, 2008. It was ordered that in the event of arrest, the appellant shall be released on anticipatory bail of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties of Rs.2,500/- each; one of such surety shall be local. The Sessions Judge (I/C) also put a condition that the appellant shall attend the police station once in a week for eight weeks. He also imposed usual conditions as laid down in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.

5. The complainant - Jayant Naskar approached the High Court for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge (I/C) to the appellant. By the impugned order dated September 18, 2008, the High Court cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge (I/C).

6. On December 12, 2008 this Court while issuing notice stayed the operation of the impugned order. The order of Sessions Judge (I/C) granting anticipatory bail, thus, has remained operative.

7. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order of the High Court.

8. Although the High Court did notice in the impugned order that the considerations which should be in the mind of the court while considering the prayer for grant of bail are not the same for the purpose of cancellation of bail, yet we find that these considerations were not kept in mind and the order of the Sessions Judge granting anticipatory bail was set aside.

9. In Dolat Ram And Ors. vs. State of Haryana,1 (1995) 1 SCC 349, this Court held:

“4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be consid ered and dealt with on different basis. a Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court,on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1549

2009(6) Supreme 564SUPREME COURT OF INDIATarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha,JJ.Hazari Lal Das —Appellant versusState of West Bengal & Anr —Respondents Criminal Appeal No. 1732 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8565/2008)Decided on 08-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINTBail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail.

Cases Referred (1)

2009(6) Supreme 564
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and R.M. Lodha,JJ.
Hazari Lal Das —Appellant
versus
State of West Bengal & Anr —Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1732 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8565/2008)
Decided on 08-09-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail.