2009 (2) TMI 898 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the bail granted to the appellant was valid despite the complainant not being heard.
2. Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in granting bail.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Bail Granted Without Hearing the Complainant
The appellant was accused in Criminal Complaint No. 1604 of 2005 for alleged offences u/s 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The Judicial Magistrate granted bail on December 1, 2006, without hearing the original complainant. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh canceled this bail on March 24, 2008, citing a violation of natural justice principles. The Supreme Court noted that u/s 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a person accused of a bailable offence is entitled to bail as a matter of right. The Court emphasized that the officer or court is bound to release the accused on bail if he is willing to abide by reasonable conditions, and there is no requirement to hear the complainant in such cases.

Issue 2: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The Supreme Court held that the principles of natural justice do not necessitate hearing the complainant before granting bail in bailable offences. The Court stated that the right to bail in bailable offences is an "absolute and indefeasible right" and that the complainant's hearing is not mandated by Section 436 of the Code. The Court further clarified that natural justice principles are not a "mantra" to be applied in all cases and must be considered based on the specific facts of each case.

Issue 3: Justification of High Court's Cancellation of Bail
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in canceling the bail granted by the Judicial Magistrate on the ground of not hearing the complainant. The Court reiterated that bail in bailable offences can only be canceled if the accused misuses his liberty, interferes with the investigation, tampers with evidence, threatens witnesses, or engages in similar activities. The Court concluded that the High Court's decision to cancel the bail was not justified as the complainant's hearing was not a requisite condition for granting bail in bailable offences.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated March 24, 2008, and restored the Judicial Magistrate's order dated December 1, 2006, granting bail to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.