9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court has inherent power under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to cancel bail granted under Section 496 for bailable offences. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Power to Cancel Bail under Section 496 and Section 561A: The appellant, charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act, was released on bail for Rs. 75,000. The complainant's application to cancel the bail was dismissed by the Magistrate, citing lack of jurisdiction under Section 496 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court, however, invoked its inherent power under Section 561A to cancel the bail, stating it was necessary in the interests of justice. 2. Provisions of Bail under Sections 496 to 498: Section 496 mandates that a person accused of a bailable offence must be released on bail if they offer to give bail. Section 497 deals with non-bailable offences, granting discretion to release the accused on bail unless the offence is punishable with death or life imprisonment. Section 498(1) allows the High Court or Court of Session to direct admission to bail or reduce bail amounts. Section 498(2) empowers these courts to arrest and commit to custody any person admitted to bail. 3. Inherent Power of High Courts under Section 561A: Section 561A, added in 1923, preserves the inherent power of the High Courts to ensure justice, prevent abuse of process, and give effect to orders under the Code. This power is not to be invoked if it conflicts with specific provisions of the Code. The inherent power can be exercised to maintain the integrity of the judicial process, such as ensuring a fair trial by preventing the accused from obstructing justice. 4. Fair Trial and Conduct of the Accused: A fair trial must be balanced for both the accused and the prosecution. If the accused's conduct threatens the fairness of the trial, such as by intimidating witnesses or absconding, the High Court can use its inherent power to cancel bail and commit the accused to custody to ensure the trial proceeds without obstruction. 5. Conflict between Section 496 and Section 561A: The appellant argued that Section 496 provides an absolute right to bail for bailable offences, and the High Court's order under Section 561A would be ineffective as the trial court would still be bound to grant bail. However, the Court clarified that once the High Court cancels bail under Section 561A, the accused's subsequent conduct justifies their commitment to custody, making Section 496 inapplicable. 6. Application of Section 498: Section 498(1) applies to both bailable and non-bailable offences, allowing the High Court or Court of Session to admit to bail or reduce bail amounts. Section 498(2), added in 1955, explicitly allows these courts to cancel bail and commit the accused to custody, even for bailable offences. This provision supports the view that the right to bail can be forfeited if the accused's conduct is prejudicial to a fair trial. 7. Judicial Precedents and Inherent Power: Prior to the enactment of Section 498(2), judicial decisions supported the inherent power of High Courts to cancel bail under Section 561A, even for non-bailable offences. This principle extends to bailable offences, emphasizing that maintaining a fair trial is paramount. 8. Distinction between Bailable and Non-Bailable Offences: The Court held that the classification of offences as bailable or non-bailable does not affect the inherent power to cancel bail if the accused's conduct jeopardizes a fair trial. The inherent power under Section 561A can be invoked to ensure justice, regardless of the offence's classification. 9. Reference to Privy Council Decision: The appellant cited the Privy Council's decision in Lala Jairam Das v. King Emperor, which stated that the Code's provisions on bail are exhaustive and exclude additional inherent powers. However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the Privy Council did not address the inherent power to cancel bail under Section 561A. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's view that it has inherent power under Section 561A to cancel bail in the interests of justice. This power must be exercised sparingly and cautiously, ensuring that the ends of justice are served. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's order to cancel the appellant's bail and commit him to custody.
|
