Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI., RANJAN GOGOI, N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
State of Maharashtra & Another – Appellants
Versus
Pappu @ Suresh Budharmal Kalani – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2014 Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl) No. 2375 of 2014
Decided On : 24-04-2014
(2001) 6 SCC 338; (2008) 13 SCC 584; (2012) 9 SCC 446; (2013) 7 SCC 452 – Referred
Facts of the case:
This is an appeal against grant of bail to the sole respondent by the High Court in an offence u/s 302 r/w 120B, IPC.
The respondent was accused under Section 120(B) read with Section 302, IPC on the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy in the killing of the deceased Inder Bhatija. The trial Court convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
The High Court enlarged him on bail.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned judgment is not justified.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Certainly. When an accused breaches the conditions of bail granted by the High Court, the trial court or the court that originally granted the bail has the authority to cancel or revoke the bail. The legal principle underlying this is that bail is a privilege granted on certain conditions, and breach of these conditions can justify its revocation. The courts have consistently held that the breach of bail conditions undermines the purpose of bail and jeopardizes the administration of justice, thereby empowering the court to cancel or revoke bail to prevent misuse or abuse of the liberty granted.
The legal reasoning is based on the principle that bail is not an absolute right but a conditional privilege, and the court can revoke it if the conditions are violated. The decision to cancel bail is typically made to ensure compliance with the court's orders, maintain law and order, and uphold the integrity of the judicial process.
This principle is reinforced by the understanding that the court's primary concern is to prevent the accused from absconding, tampering with evidence, or committing further offenses, which can be demonstrated by breach of bail conditions. Therefore, courts have the inherent power to revoke bail when conditions are breached, regardless of whether the original grant was by a High Court or a lower court.
In summary, breach of bail conditions granted by the High Court provides a valid ground for the trial court or the original granting court to cancel or revoke the bail, rooted in the fundamental legal principles governing bail and judicial authority.
JUDGMENT
N.V. Ramana, J. –
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 7th March, 2014 in Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2013 in Criminal Appeal No. 1309 of 2013 whereby the High Court granted bail to the sole respondent.
3. The respondent was accused in Crime No. 89 of 1990 of the Vitthalwada Police Station, Thane registered under Section 120(B) read with Section 302, IPC on the allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy in the killing of the deceased Inder Bhatija. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the respondent-accused and the trial Court by order dated 29th November, 2013 convicted and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
4. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the respondent-accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1309 of 2013 before the High Court. Considering his Criminal Application No. 1788 of 2013, the High Court enlarged him on bail by the order dated 7th March, 2014 which is impugned herein. Against the said order, the State preferred this appeal.
5. When the matter came up before us on 12-03-2014, we issued notice and directed that if the respondent-accused not being released pursuant to the impugned order of the High Court till date, there shall be stay of the said order.
6. Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra contended that the accused is involved in as many as 52 cases, out of which in 20 cases offences were registered against him before going to jail and while he was in jail. 32 cases were registered after being released by this Court on conditional bail in August, 2001. He has given a list of 52 cases where the respondent is accused. It is also contended that in the present case, when the investigation was going on, it was found by the police that the respondent was the mastermind behind the murder of the deceased. The High Court, while granting bail to the accused, has not considered any of the facts and circumstances and history of the respondent. Simply relying upon the evidence of some of the witnesses, the High Court granted bail without applying its mind. He also contended that the grant of bail to the accused would adversely affect the trial and investigation in other criminal cases pending against him and there is also likelihood of tampering with the evidence. The respondent being a political leader, there is every chance for influencing the pending criminal cases in which very serious offences were charged against him and prayed for cancellation of bail.
7. A Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 8543 of 2014 has been filed in the present appeal by one Kamal Bathija who claims to be the brother of the deceased Inder Bhatija, seeking leave of this Court to implead himself as an appellant. Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel appearing for the impleading party, supported the case of the State Government and sought for cancellation of bail. He contended that the High Court has not fully appreciated the facts and evidence before granting bail to the accused. The High Court ignored the main fact that the respondent-accused was the mastermind in hatching the criminal conspiracy for the murder of the deceased by engaging habitual and professional killers. Above all, during the pendency of trial in the present case, the respondent had committed several other criminal offences and hence bail granted by the High Court shall be cancelled.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-accused, while drawing our attention to a list of cases in which the respondent was acquitted, contended that the respondent has already spent 9 long years in jail during the pendency of trial, and not even one witness supported the case of the prosecution, more particularly, the crucial witn
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
