Back
2020 Supreme(Gau) 672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.
State Of Nagaland - Appellant
Versus
Ripu Daman Singh - Respondent
Interlocutory Application(Criminal) No. 389 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020
Nagaland, Advocate, D.K. Jain, Advocate
The apprehension of the accused not appearing for trial if released on bail is not sufficient for the cancellation of bail. The harshness of the order of bail cancellation and the lack of reasoning for the cancellation were also emphasized.
Headnote:
Bail Cancellation - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Sections 406, 420, 465, 471 - The court discussed the nature of exercise while cancelling bail, the grounds for bail cancellation, and the harshness of the order. It also considered the punishment for the offenses and the lack of reasoning for the cancellation of bail. The court rejected the prayer for bail cancellation.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was granted bail in a case involving allegations of not arranging travel documents and sending fake air tickets. The petitioner filed an application for cancellation of the bail, expressing concerns about the respondent not appearing for trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the apprehension that the respondent might not appear for trial if he leaves Nagaland was not sufficient for the cancellation of bail. It also noted the lack of reasoning for the cancellation of bail and the absence of disclosure about the institution of a money suit for recovery.
Issues: The issues involved the grounds for bail cancellation, the harshness of the order, and the lack of reasoning for the cancellation of bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the nature of exercise while cancelling bail, the grounds for bail cancellation, and the harshness of the order. It also considered the punishment for the offenses and the lack of reasoning for the cancellation of bail.
Final Decision: The court rejected the prayer for cancellation of bail, stating that the apprehension about the respondent not appearing for trial if he leaves Nagaland was not acceptable in the eye of the law. The Interlocutory Application was dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard Ms. T. Khro, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State of Nagaland. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This is a petition praying for cancellation of bail granted by this Court on 02.07.2020 in Bail Application No. 1326 of 2020.
3. On 5th February, 2020 Dr. Imtisangba, a Pastor of Chumukedima Ao Baptist Church lodged an FIR before police stating that he and some other person wanted to visit Holy Land and for that matter they approached the respondent Ripu Daman Singh at New Delhi. Mr. Singh ran a travel agency by the name and style of TripCraving. It is alleged that Mr. Singh could not arrange the travel documents in time therefore the informant and his associates had to reschedule the tour from 10th September, 2019 to 4th September, 2020. It is further alleged till the month of November, 2019 the respondent could not arrange the tour. According to the informant the respondent Ripu Daman Singh had sent them some fake air tickets. Therefore, on 29th January, 2020 a notice was sent to Ripu Daman Singh asking him to refund Rs. 34,65,000/- which was given to him for arranging the tour. The notice also demanded return of 40 nos. of passports which were handed over to Ripu Daman Singh for arranging the tour.
4. Police registered the case under Sections 406/420/465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. Nagaland police went to New Delhi and arrested Ripu Daman Singh. They brought him to Nagaland. He was sent to judicial custody on his arrival at Nagaland. Finally police filed the charge sheet against the respondent Ripu Daman Singh. Thereafter Trial Court framed the charges under Section 406, 420 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code and the trial started accordingly.
6. The respondent made a prayer before this Court for granting bail and he was allowed to go on bail by this Court on 02.07.2020 in Bail Application No. 1326 of 2020.
7. Now the petitioner has filed this application for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent. The only ground taken by the petitioner is that the respondent might not appear in the Trial Court to face the trial if he succeeds in getting out of Nagaland.
8. On this point Mr. Jain has submitted that if the police can go all the way to New Delhi to arrest the respondent there, police will be able to do that again if he fails to appear before the Trial Court.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsels.
10. A three-judge Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State (Delhi Administration) vs. Sanjay Gandhi, (1978) 2 SCC 411, made the following elemental distinction in defining the nature of exercise while cancelling bail:
"Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another, It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail already granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial."
11. In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar, (1986) 4 SCC 481, the Supreme Court has held that bail can be cancelled where (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
12. Reverting to the case in hand, rejection of bail stands on one footing and cancellation of bail stand on another. Cancellation of bail is a harsh ord
