IMPORTANT POINT
When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 439(2)-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 295A, 427 and 435-Arms Act, 1959-Section 25(4)-Cancellation of bail-Considerations for grant of bail and cancellation of bail stand on different footings-Circumstances when bail granted can be cancelled-Threat given to complainant in Court premises -Whether a ground for cancellation of bail-(Yes)-However, mere assertion of an alleged threat to witnesses should not be utilised as a ground for cancellation of bail, routinely-Otherwise there is ample scope for making such allegation to nullify the bail granted-Court before which such allegations are made should in each case carefully weigh acceptability of allegations and pass orders as circumstances warrant in law-Such matters should be dealt with expeditiously so that actual interference with ordinary and normal course of justice is nipped at the bud and an irretrievable stage is not reached.
       Held : It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to. It is undisputed that an affidavit of Police Inspector attached to Control Room, Solapur was filed which indicated the threat given to the complainant in the court premises on 16.7.2003. Merely because in the evidence recorded there is no reference to the threat, that does not go to prove the negative or sufficient to infer that there was no such threat. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at least some reference should have been made to the threat. That there was no such reference, according to us, is really of no consequence. The evidence was being recorded with regard to the incident dated 11.10.2002 and not in relation to a subsequent event which is the subject matter of consideration in the case registered in relation to the alleged threat. In the affidavit it has been clearly mentioned that a case (CR No. 3097/2003) was registered under Section 188 IPC in relation to the threat. It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the appellant that nothing seem to have been urged by way of reply to the affidavit or the truth or otherwise to the contents thereof before the High Court, as the order impugned shows. That being so, the appellant cannot make a grievance that no enquiry was made to find out the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the affidavit. As there were allegations prima facie showing that the witnesses have been threatened, a ground for cancellation of bail did exist. (Paras 9 to 11)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 439(2)-Cancellation of bail-Court which had granted bail should have heard the application for cancellation of bail-This is a desirable course-But at the same time the party who makes a grievance that the course has not been followed has to indicate as to in what manner he was in prejudice by the deviation.
       Held : There is a long standing convention and requirement of judicial discipline which has held the field for a long period that subsequent application for grant or cancellation of bail application should be placed before the same learned Judge who had passed the earlier order. This certainly is a desirable course. But at the same time the party who makes a grievance that the course has not been followed has to indicate as to in what manner he was in prejudice by the deviation. The question of prejudice arises only when on the same set of facts, a different order is passed by another learned Judge cancelling the bail or granting the bail as the case may be. But where the cancellation is sought for on grounds different from those which existed at the time of granting bail, the conventional practice of placing the matter before the same learned Judge need not be followed as if it is a statutory requirement. It does not appear from the order of the High Court that any submission was made before the learned Single Judge who passed the impugned order to place the matter before the same learned Judge who had passed the earlier order. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. By the impugned judgment the Bombay High Court directed cancellation of bail which was granted earlier to the appellant.

3. In a nutshell, the accusations against the appellant and the background scenario so far as relevant for the disposal of this appeal are as follows :

4. On 11.10.2002 a complaint was lodged by one Sunil Nyaneshwar Yadav alleging that while he had gone to Solapur there was communal riot. In the evening he had gone to Vishnu Nagar for witnessing installation of Shakti Idol along with five others. They were sitting on the stage in the evening. At about 5.00 p.m., a group of persons came there and removed the idol of Shakti. At that time one Chanderkant Arjun had come by a motorcycle. When the offenders learnt that the police had come they started fleeing. The said Chanderkant was chasing the offenders. There was scuffle between Chanderkant and the offenders. One of the offenders pierced the knife in the stomach of Chanderkant and he was lying in the pool of blood and was taken to the hospital. On the date of incident, two other persons were assaulted by the five named offenders. The first information report was registered. The accusations so far as the appellant is concerned, were that he had instigated the mob to assault and murder. Learned Single Judge took note of the fact that persons who were named as accused persons were already released on bail, on the basis of the statement made by the learned APP. Accusations against the appellant were also that he was responsible for the riots at different places at Solapur. Taking note of the circumstances and the only allegation against him was of instigation, bail was granted since the charge sheets were placed and he was in custody for more than 7 and 1/2 months. On 18.6.2003 an application for cancellation of bail was filed by the State of Maharashtra under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) alleging that there was suppression of material facts from the Court. It was not a fact that all the co-accused persons were released on bail. The application was numbered as Criminal Application No. 2335 of 2003. When the matter was taken up, an affidavit was filed by one Gajanan Rajaram Huddedar, the Inspector of Police, stating that that appellant had threatened the complainant of dire consequences in the court premises of learned Sessions Judge during trial on 16.7.2003 at 2.30 p.m. when the matter was fixed for evidence. Complaint was lodged with the Police Inspector, Begumpeth Police Station, Solapur by one Sunil Yadav that he had appeared before the Sessions Judge pursuant to summons issued by the Court. During lunch time, when he was going towards the Court he was threatened by three persons including the appellant and he was told that dire consequences would follow if he would depose against the appellant and other accused. The place where the threat was made was also indicated. The appellant filed application under Section 439 of the Code for bail in connection with the case which was in relation to offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 295A, 427, 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ) and Section 25(4) of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the Arms Act ). The learned Sessions Judge who heard the bail application rejected the same by order dated 21.2.2003. A bail application was moved before the Bombay High Court which was registered as Criminal Bail Application No. 1012/2003 dated 7.3.2003. The learned Single Judge (Justice S.S. Parkar) allowed the application for bail by order dated 4.6.2003.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State brought this fact to the notice of the Court and learned Single Judge (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani) who was hearing the cancellation of bail application took note of the fact that the appellant has misused the liberty earlier granted to him by threatening the witnesses of dire consequences. Taking further note of the fact

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 62

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled.

Cases Referred (3)

IMPORTANT POINT
When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled.