Bail: Cancellation of Bail – In the instant case, accused persons 1 to 10 were accused of having committed the offence u/ss.114, 109, 120B, 143, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 and 395 r/w s.149 IPC – Accused no. 6 applied for anticipatory bail and accused no
8 applied for regular bail before the court of session which were rejected but both the bail applications were allowed by the High Court – Subsequently on appeal the High Court cancelled the bails granted to Accused 2, 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 which was upheld by Supreme Court and the regular bail of accused no 1 was also cancelled – Aggrieved by non-cancellation of bail granted to accused no 6 and
8 by High Court, the complainant filed instant appeal – Held: Application for cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court requires significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court – In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside – As far as attribution of specific acts against the accused Respondents is concerned, it becomes amply clear from the statement of all the witnesses that Accused No. 6 and 8 indeed participated in assaulting the deceased – Furthermore, as the accused group continued its assault, Accused No. 6, instigated them by saying that this was not enough – Thereafter, as perused from the statement of the complainant/appellant, Accused No. 8 who came on a motorcycle had also brutally beaten the deceased with a wooden stick – In addition to these statements, there was enough evidence to indicate that a heinous offence was committed in furtherance of a common objective, and therefore the accused Respondents should not have been enlarged on bail – In view of the facts and for the reasons stated, impugned orders passed by the High Court releasing Accused No. 6 and 8 on bail, are set aside.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is a well-established principle that once bail has been granted it would require overwhelming circumstances for its cancellation. However, in Vipan Kumar Dhir Vs. State of Punjab and Anr it was reiterated, that while conventionally, certain supervening circumstances impeding fair trial must develop after granting bail to an accused, for its cancellation by a superior court, bail, can also be revoked by a superior court, when the previous court granting bail has ignored relevant material available on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact. [Para 23][1100G-H; 1101-A] Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab and Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 854; Ram Govind Upadhyay v.
Sudarshan Singh and Others (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002]
2 SCR 526; Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Anr. (2010) 14 SCC 496 : [2010] 12 SCR 1165 – relied on.
2. While considering cancellation of bail already granted by a lower court, would indeed require significant scrutiny at the instance of superior court, however, bail when granted can always be revoked if the relevant material on record, gravity of the offence or its societal impact have not been considered by the lower court. In such instances, where bail is granted in a mechanical manner, the order granting bail is liable to be set aside. Moreover, certain basic principles which must be borne in mind when deciding upon an application for grant of bail. Thus, while each case has its own unique factual matrix, which assumes a significant role in determination of bail matters, grant of bail must also be exercised by having regard to the well-settled principles. As far as attribution of specific acts against the accused Respondents is concerned, it becomes amply clear from the statement of all the witnesses that Accused No. 6 and 8 have indeed participated in assaulting the deceased. Furthermore, as the accused group continued its assault, Accused No. 6, instigated them by saying that this wasn’t enough. Thereafter, as perused from the statement of the complainant/appellant, Accused No. 8 who came on a motorcycle had also brutally beaten the deceased with a wooden stick. In addition to these statements, there is enough evidence to indicate that a heinous offence was committed in furtherance of a common objective, and therefore the accused Respondents should not have been enlarged on bail. [Paras 26, 30, 35][1103-D-F; 1104-C-D]
Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2016) 15 SCC
422 : [2015] 10 SCR 802 – relied on.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2021) 2 SCC 427; Daulat Ram and Others v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349 : [1994] 6 Suppl. SCR 69; State (Delhi Admn) v. Sanjay Gandhi (1978) 2 SCC 411; Kashmira Singh v. Duman Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693; CBI v. Subramani Gopalkrishnan (2011) 5 SCC
296 : [2011] 5 SCR 824; X v. State of Telangana (2020)
16 SCC 511; Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and Others Ram Govind (2002) 3 SCC 598 : [2002] 2 SCR 526 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.