1967 (5) TMI 69 - SC - Customs

whether the inherent power of tile High Court is conferred by or has the sanction of enacted law - cancellation of bail in an bailable offence.

Summary

Issues:
- Cancellation of bail orders by the High Court under inherent jurisdiction
- Interpretation of Art. 21 of the Constitution in relation to personal liberty and inherent powers of the High Court
- Application of Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding inherent powers of the High Court
- Examination of findings of fact by the Supreme Court in an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution

Cancellation of Bail Orders:
The appellant, along with others, was being tried for an offence under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and other Acts. The High Court of Maharashtra cancelled the bail orders of the appellant, directing him to surrender. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, citing the power of the High Court to cancel bail if necessary to secure justice or prevent abuse of the court's process. The appellant's argument against this was dismissed, emphasizing the distinction in treatment between bailable and non-bailable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Interpretation of Art. 21 of the Constitution:
The appellant argued that the High Court's inherent power violates Art. 21 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty. The Court referred to previous judgments to explain that the term 'law' in Art. 21 refers to enacted or State-made law, not natural justice principles. It further discussed cases where deprivation of personal liberty by legislative bodies was deemed lawful under established procedures.

Application of Sec. 561-A of the Code:
The judgment highlighted the inherent powers of the High Court, preserved by Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to make orders necessary to prevent abuse of court processes or secure justice. These powers were deemed to be vested in the High Court by 'law' within the meaning of Art. 21 of the Constitution, as confirmed by previous legislation and the Constitution itself.

Examination of Findings of Fact:
The Supreme Court noted that it does not typically re-examine findings of fact in appeals under Art. 136 of the Constitution. Despite this, the Court did not interfere with the High Court's findings that led to the cancellation of bail. The appellant was granted bail with specific conditions due to delays caused by the prosecution in examining witnesses, ensuring justice is served while upholding the appellant's rights.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal while modifying the order to release the appellant on bail by a specified date, taking into account the delays caused by the prosecution in the trial proceedings.