The High Court has the power to cancel bail granted by a lower court if it finds that the bail was granted illegally, improperly, or by arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Dash, J. - The Petitioner in this application u/s 482, Cr. P.C. seeks to invoke the inherent power of this Court to set aside the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Puri, in Criminal Misc. Case No. 633 of 1991, whereby the bail granted to him by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Nayagarh, has been cancelled. The Petitioner and his parents are arraigned as accused in Nayagarh P.S. Case No. 109 of 1991 under Sections 498-A and 306/34, I.P.C. read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case as set out in the F. I.R., is that the Petitioner married lndumati (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') according to Hindu rites and customs on 9-3-1988. On account non-fulfilment of demand for dowry, the Petitioner and his parents tortured her, as a result, she committed suicide. On 11-7-1991 on being informed, the informant, brother of the deceased, came to Petitioner's house and found the decessed lying dead. Thereupon he lodged information at Nayagarh P.S. on the basis of which the aforesaid case was registered against the Petitioner and his parents for the offences aforementioned.

3. Both the parents-in-law of the deceased first moved for bail before the S.D. J.M.. Nayagarh. There being a prima facie case and the offence being against the society their prayer was rejected. About a week thereafter they again moved the court through another counsel and the very same Assistant Sessions Judge released the mother-in-law on the. ground that the deceased's male child who was in her care and custody was seriously ill and there was nobody to take care of him. So far as father-in-law is concerned the court also admitted him to bail holding that in his name did not find mention in the F.I. R. It was only after their release that the present Petitioner surrendered in the court below and moved for bail. His prayer having been rejected he moved the Assistant Sessions Judge who on the very day obtained the L.C. R. and having heard the parties released him on bail mainly on three grounds:

(i) The plea of alibi taken by the Petitioner in the affidavit that when the incident occurred he was at Damanjodi where he was earning his livelihood as a grocer,

(ii) From the date of filing of the F.I. R. till the date of the order two months had elapsed and by that time Police might have completed the investigation.

(iii) Petitioner was a sickly person and required medical treatment as per the certificate given by the doctor. Aggrieved thereby the informant approached the Court of Session, Puri, u/s 439(2), Cr. P.C. for cancellation of bail to the accused persons.

4. The moot question for consideration before the learned Sessions Judge was whether the learned Assistant Sessions Judge exercised discretion vested in him judiciously keeping in mind the principle of law as settled by the Apex Court on the question of bail. As it appears from the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge doubted the fairness of Assistant Sessions Judge in the matter. The relevant observation made in that regard is' extracted herein below,

x x x it is crystal clear that learned Asst. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh had adopted different standards at different time in considering the prayer for bail of the accused persons, which according to ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Baikunth v. Bula is a bad practice. Such conduct of the learned Asst. Sessions Judge even having the power to entertain a bail application u/s 439, Cr. P.C. amounts to illegal exercise of the jurisdiction.

5. Powers of the High Court or Court of Session for grant of bail u/s 439,Cr P.C. are not controlled by the statutory limitation laid down in Section 437 for refusing bail if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Such powers are unfettered by any rule defining the limits within which they would be exercised, as powers u/s 437 are. It is, however, well s