1978 (5) TMI 119 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail
2. Allegations of tampering with witnesses
3. Application of Section 437 and Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code
4. Burden of proof for cancellation of bail
5. Judicial discretion and fairness in the trial process

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Bail:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent. The prosecution argued that the respondent, charged with serious offences including conspiracy and theft under Section 120B read with Section 409 of the Penal Code, should not have been granted bail initially. The prosecution emphasized that the respondent was accused of a non-bailable offence, punishable by life imprisonment, and had misused his liberty by attempting to tamper with witnesses.

2. Allegations of Tampering with Witnesses:
The prosecution presented multiple instances to support their claim that the respondent tampered with witnesses. Key incidents included:
- Complaints by Kanwar Singh Yadav and R.B. Khedkar on February 14, 1978, stating that the respondent was attempting to contact Yadav through his driver, Ram Chander.
- Affidavits from Sat Pal Singh, Ganpat Singh, and Digambar Das confirming that Yadav was seen leaving with the respondent on February 17, 1978.
- An affidavit by Sarup Singh, dated February 28, 1978, stating that he overheard the respondent assuring Yadav not to worry.
- Earlier complaints by Charan Singh and A.K. Dangwal in July 1977, alleging attempts by the respondent to tamper with their testimonies.

3. Application of Section 437 and Section 439(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Court discussed the application of Section 437, which governs bail in non-bailable offences, and Section 439(2), which allows the High Court or Sessions Court to cancel bail if the accused interferes with the course of justice. The Court emphasized that the power to cancel bail, though extraordinary, must be exercised with care and only when it is clear that the accused is tampering with witnesses.

4. Burden of Proof for Cancellation of Bail:
The Court clarified that the prosecution does not need to prove tampering with witnesses beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the standard of proof is based on a preponderance of probabilities, similar to civil cases. The prosecution must show that there is a reasonable apprehension that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses.

5. Judicial Discretion and Fairness in the Trial Process:
The Court stressed the importance of ensuring a fair trial and avoiding undue hardship or harassment to the accused. The Court noted that the trial is still pending, and any observations made in this incidental proceeding should not influence the trial. The Court also highlighted that the cancellation of bail should be limited to a period necessary to examine the key witnesses, ensuring that the respondent's liberty is not unduly restricted.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the High Court's judgment and canceling the respondent's bail for a period of one month. The Court directed that the respondent be taken into custody and be entitled to fresh bail after the specified period. The Sessions Judge was given the liberty to fix the amount and conditions of bail. The Court's order emphasized the need for a balanced approach, ensuring both the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused.