2001 (5) TMI 971 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge.
2. Requirement of reasons for granting bail.
3. High Court's authority to cancel bail.
4. Grounds for cancellation of bail.
5. Locus standi of third parties in moving for cancellation of bail.
6. High Court's inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Summary:

1. Cancellation of Bail Granted by the Additional Sessions Judge:
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order dated 24th January 2001, which cancelled the bail granted to the Petitioner by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, on 13th November 2000. The Petitioner was charged u/s 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code following the death of his wife, Puja Agrawal, within a year of their marriage.

2. Requirement of Reasons for Granting Bail:
The Court noted that the Additional Sessions Judge had not provided reasons for granting bail, which was a key reason for the High Court's cancellation. The Supreme Court emphasized that while detailed examination of evidence is not required at the bail stage, some reasons for prima facie conclusions must be indicated.

3. High Court's Authority to Cancel Bail:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the High Court had correctly noted the prima facie evidence of dowry demand and the circumstances of the offence. The High Court concluded that the material on record suggested the offences u/s 498-A and 304-B were prima facie disclosed, making it an unfit case for bail.

4. Grounds for Cancellation of Bail:
The Court referred to the case of Dolat Ram & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for cancelling bail already granted. However, it clarified that an order granting bail in a heinous crime without reasons could be set aside if it was perverse and against the principles of law.

5. Locus Standi of Third Parties in Moving for Cancellation of Bail:
The Supreme Court rejected the argument that a third party cannot move for bail cancellation. It cited the case of R. Rathinam vs. State by DSP, District Crime Branch, Madurai District, Madurai, stating that any aggrieved party, not just the State, can invoke the High Court's power u/s 439(2) for bail cancellation.

6. High Court's Inherent Jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code:
The Court dismissed the argument that the High Court could not cancel bail granted by the Sessions Court. It affirmed that the High Court, being a superior court, has the inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 to interfere with orders causing miscarriage of justice, even if they are interlocutory.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court found no substance in the appeals and upheld the High Court's decision to cancel the bail, emphasizing that the cancellation was based on valid and cogent reasons. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.