Important Point
Bail granted to life convict during pendency of appeal could not be recalled merely on ground that accused was involved in two criminal cases but not of serious nature.

0RDER

P. Sathasivam, J.— This is an application filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel the bail granted to respondent-Accused No.5 in Criminal M.P. No. 5440 of 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2002 dated 9-7-2002.

2. Heard, Mr. V.M.R. Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the petitioner and Mr. A. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for respondent­ Accused No.5.

3. In the affidavit filed in support of the above application, the Inspector of Police, Erode Town Police Station has stated that the respondent herein was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of life for an offence under Section 302, IPC on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode. Against the said conviction, the respondent has filed a petition in Criminal M.P. No. 5440 of 2002, praying for suspension of sentence and also enlarge him on bail pending Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2002. By order dated 9.7.2002, this Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, passed an order, enlarging the respon-dent on bail on condition that he should execute a bond, on or after 16.7.2002 for a sum of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Erode and on further condition that he should report before the said Magistrate on the first working day of every month at 10.30 a.m. till the disposal of the appeal. It is further stated that after releasing the respondent on bail, he involved in two cases and those cases are pending before the concerned Court. Apart from the said two cases, the respondent has involved in three more cases, which ended in acquittal. The respondent is a history sheeted rowdy in Erode Town Police Station and his History Sheet Rowdy Number is 78/99. With these particulars, the petitioner has prayed for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent in Crl. M.P. No. 5440 of 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2002.

4. There is no dispute that on 9.7.2002, the respondent herein — A5 in Sessions Case No. 193 of 1999 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode was enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions and after complying with the said conditions, he was released on bail. It is the claim of the petitioner that after release on bail, the respondent has committed the following offences :

Sl. No. Cr. No. & P.S. Offence under Section Stage of the case

1. 638/2002 Erode Town 294(b), 427, 323, 324 & 506(ii) Pending before JM II, Erode.

P.S. I.P.C.

2. 53/03 of Erode Town 353,.IPC Pending trial before the JM II,

P.S. Erode in STC. No. 900/2003.

It is also the claim of the petitioner that besides the above-said two cases, the respondent has involved in three cases. For which, the learned counsel for the respondent informs that all the said three cases ended in acquittal. The two cases referred to above are still pending before the respective Court.

5. Mr. A. Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent are not serious one warranting cancellation of the bail granted earlier. By citing

several decisions, he contended that for cancellation of bail, there must be cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary. In support of his claim, he relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court.

“(i) Bhagirathisinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat1 (ii) Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana2 (iii) Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi3 (iv) Subbendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Mishra4

6. There is no dispute that High Court or Court of Sessions has power to direct any person who has been released on bail be arrested and commit him to custody. The power of this Court to pass an order cancelling the bai