SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1924 Supreme(Mad) 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Coutts-Trotter
Public Prosecutor
Versus
M. Sanyasayya Naidu
Decided On : 19 December, 1924

The court has inherent jurisdiction to revise the grant of bail if circumstances warrant it, and the granting of bail should be based on the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses.

Headnote:

Bail - Attempted Murder - The court discussed the legal provision of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows for the release on bail of a person accused of a non-bailable offense. The court interpreted the provision to have inherent jurisdiction to revise the grant of bail if circumstances warrant it, and considered the principles governing the granting of bail, focusing on the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with witnesses.

Fact of the Case:

Five persons were charged with the attempted murder of the Sub-Collector. Bail was granted to three of the accused, but the court ordered the re-arrest of two accused, citing the likelihood of them absconding before their trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was good cause to not allow two of the accused to be on bail, as there was a short time between the bail grant and their trial, and there was a possibility of them absconding or tampering with witnesses.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused should be allowed to remain on bail, considering the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of them absconding or tampering with witnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provision for bail, the principles governing the granting of bail, and the specific circumstances of the case, including the short time between the bail grant and the trial.

Final Decision: The court ordered the re-arrest of two of the accused and the cancellation of their bail bonds, while allowing the bail order to stand for the third accused.

JUDGMENT

Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. In this case five persons were charged with the attempted murder of the Sub-Collector. The accused applied for bail and ultimately bail was granted, on the information then before him, by my learned brother in this Court. It was first argued that under the Code there was no power inherent in this Court to revise any such grant of bail. I have never been able to see the difficulty. Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure runs as follows:

When any person accused of any non-bail-able offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station, or appears or is brought, before a Court, he may be released on bail.

2. That is what happened here. By Sub-section 5 of that section, the Court therein described "may cause any person, who has been released under this section, to be arrested and may commit him to custody." In the face of that, the argument that there is no power in this Court, whatever change of circumstances may be proved before it, to revise the order granting bail seems to be absolutely untenable. I hold that we have ample jurisdiction to exercise our discretion and order the re-arrest of any person out on bail, if we feel the circumstances warrant or demand such a course.

3. In this case, we are concerned with 3 men; one is the 5th accused, about whom most of the argument has been addressed to us. He is a retired Inspector of Police and he is alleged to have taken part in this very serious offence of attempted murder. The third accused is his son-in-law, also a man in an important position, which he has forfeited; he was in the position of Village Munsif. The 2nd accused is the son of the 5th and, in the absence of anything brought to our notice, we think that on the security which has been ordered, he may be allowed to be at liberty till the trial.

4. The principles which govern the granting of bail, I think are not really doubtful. The Court is not called upon to conduct a preliminary trial of the case and consider the probability of the accuseds guilt or innocence. It would be entirely exceeding its function, if it did that in any detail; but it may incidentally have to look at the weight of the evidence against the accused, as a necessary part of what I conceive to be its proper function, that is, to enquire whether the giving of the bail, as opposed to the arrest of the accused, might lead to a real danger of his absconding and not appearing to take his trial, or whether there is any real reason to suppose that he is likely to tamper with the witnesses, who would be called against him. In this case, much has been said on the latter ground and it is suggested that are tired Police Inspector and a deposed Village Munsif are people who would be in a very strong position to influence witnesses and make them resile from their testimony. I do not wish to put it on that ground; I think it is safer to put it on this ground that here, are two men of importance in their own walk of life charged with a very serious offence and that it is more than possible that they may take advantage of a release on bail to abscond and fail to take their trial. It is not to be overlooked that the hardship to which they are subject, which of course is a matter which should weigh very greatly with any Court considering a question of this kind, is not a very great one, because their trial is fixed to take place not later than the 6th of January 1925. Had it been a question of waiting in jail for months pending the trial, speaking for myself, I might have come to a different conclusion; but this is a short time, and I understand that the prisoners are given every opportunity in the prisons of this country, as they are in prisons in England, of seeing legal advisers, giving them full instructions and consulting them. In any case, I should like to say, that I trust the jail authorities in this case will give these prisoners the fullest opportunity and the fullest latitude to take




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top